Summary 2009 WY 41

Summary of Decision issued March 19, 2009

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

Case Name: Forbis v. Forbis

Citation: 2009 WY 41

Docket Number: S-08-0063

Appeal from the District Court of Laramie County, the Honorable Edward L. Grant, Judge.

Representing Appellant Forbis: Mitchell E. Osborn, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee Forbis: Matthew H. Romsa, John M. Kuker and James M. Peterson or Romsa & Kuker, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Facts/Discussion: Wife sought review of the district court’s divorce decree which ended her marriage to Husband. Wife asserted error in the district court’s division of the marital property. When the district court announced its decision from the bench on the division of the marital property, it awarded to Wife her premarital home, the parties’ interest in J & F Investments, LLC, the Crestliner boat, and two vehicles. To Husband, the court awarded the marital home, his premarital home, TD Real Estate, LLC, and two vehicles. Two days later, the district court sent a letter notifying the parties that it had erred in its oral pronouncement concerning the Cestliner boat stating that it had intended to award the boat to Husband instead of Wife.
The Court’s review of the record did not reveal evidence supporting Wife’s claim that the district court’s decision to award the boat to Husband was premised on a mistake concerning marital assets. The record reflected the district court misstated its intention regarding the boat in announcing its decision from the bench. The district court was not bound by its oral pronouncement and may modify its decision regarding marital assets until entry of the divorce decree.
Wife faulted the district court for not awarding her a judgment against Husband for $16,000 in premarital funds. However, she failed to identify any factual or legal grounds on which her claim was based.
Husband requested attorney fees and costs for having to defend what he claimed was a frivolous appeal. Sanctions under Rule 10.05 are not generally available on an appeal that challenges a trial court’s discretionary ruling.

Conclusion: The Court found no abuse of discretion in the district court’s allocation of the parties’ marital property.

Affirmed.

J. Golden delivered the decision.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/dh7vmw .

[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses the "Universal Citation." It was given an "official" citation when it was issued. You should use this citation whenever you cite the opinion, with a P.3d parallel citation. Please note when you look at the opinion that all of the paragraphs are numbered. When you pinpoint cite to a quote, you should cite to this paragraph number rather than to any page number. If you need assistance in putting together a citation using the Universal Citation form, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library.]