Summary 2007 WY 72

Summary of Decision issued April 30, 2007

[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses "Universal Citation." It was given an "official" citation when issued. You should use this citation whenever you cite the opinion, with a P.3d parallel citation. You will also note that all of the paragraphs are numbered. When you need to provide a pinpoint citation to a quote, the universal portion of the citation will use that paragraph number. The pinpoint citation in the P.3d portion will need to have the reporter page number. If you need assistance in putting together a citation from this, or any future opinion using the Universal Citation form, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library.]

Summaries are prepared by Law Librarians and are not official statements of the Wyoming Supreme Court.

Case Name: Humphrey v. Humphrey

Citation: 2007 WY 72

Docket Number: 06-155

Appeal from the District Court of Teton County, the Honorable Nancy J. Guthrie, Judge

Representing Appellant (Plaintiff): W. Keith Goody of Alpine, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee (Defendant): Lea Kuvinka of Kuvinka & Kuvinka, PC, Jackson, Wyoming.

Issues: Whether the district court erred when it valued Husband’s expectancy interest in the Humphrey Family Limited Partnership (FLP) at $578,000 and found that the interest should be taken into consideration in the division of property. Whether the district court erred when it found that the FLP was marital property, even though the Partnership was organized by Husband’s father as an estate planning device.

Facts/Discussion: Husband challenged a division of property ordered by the district court in his divorce when it considered the value of Husband’s interest in a family business for purposes of dividing property.
Standard of Review: The division of property is within the trial court’s sound discretion and the Court will not disturb the division absent an abuse of discretion.
Husband used the Court’s decisions in Dunham v. Dunham and Storm v. Storm for the proposition that the property at issue was merely an expectancy that could not be divided. The Court responded the cases had no bearing on the instant appeal. In this case, Husband currently owned the FLP interest thus there was no question regarding whether he would gain the interest in the future. His parent’s intent that the FLP and the LLC be considered estate planning devices also had no bearing on the issue because a current transfer of the property was made not a future revocable bequest.
The Court considered next whether the district court erred when it included the value of Husband’s interest as marital property. Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 20-2-114 guides a district court’s distribution of property in conjunction with a divorce. The Court referred to Wallop v. Wallop stating the trial court must consider the respective merits of the parties, the condition in which they will be left by the decree, the party through whom the property was acquired and the burdens imposed on the property for the benefit of either party and children. The district court acknowledged Husband individually owned the interest in FLP and also examined other facts and circumstances of the marriage. The district court did not abuse its discretion when it determined the value of husband’s interest should be considered in formulating an equitable property distribution. The Court noted that in Breitenstine v. Breitenstine the district court considered gifts and an inheritance received by husband during marriage when determining the division of property.

Holding: The district court did not abuse its discretion in considering the value of Husband’s FLP interest when dividing the marital assets.

Affirmed.

C.J. Voigt delivered the decision.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/2sgxr3 .