Summary 2010 WY 144

Summary of Decision November 9, 2010

[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses the "Universal Citation." It was given an "official" citation when it is issued. You should use this citation whenever you cite the opinion, with a P.3d parallel citation. You will also note when you look at the opinion 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 and we will provide any needed assistance]

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

Case Name: Kruse v. Kruse

Citation: 2010 WY 144

Docket Number: S-10-0077

URL: http://tinyurl.com/23rhyqy

Appeal from the District Court of Niobrara County, Honorable Keith G. Kautz, Judge

Representing Appellant (Defendant): C.M. Aron, Aron & Hennig, Laramie, Wyoming

Representing Appellee (Plaintiff): Edward A. Buchanan of Sawyer, Warren & Buchanan, Torrington, Wyoming.


Date of Decision: November 9, 2010

Facts: This is an appeal from the district court’s distribution in a divorce decree of two specific asset: (1) a brokerage account established after the marriage by husband in both names; and (2) a house owned by Husband before the marriage, but deeded to both parties after the marriage. The district court distributed the brokerage account to husband in its entirety because it had been established with funds inherited by him. The district court divided the value of the house between the parties.

Issues: Whether property separately reserved to a spouse by prenuptial agreement can be disregarded in considering where the parties will be left by a divorce. Where a prenuptial agreement states that pre-marriage property will be the separate property of each spouse, can the district court disregard the exclusivity of that provision by also treating the pre-marriage portion of marital property as separate property.


Holdings: There are no hard and fast rules governing property divisions. The district court’s exercise of discretion in distributing the property of divorcing parties is guided by Wyo. Stat. 20-2-114 (2009). There are no specific guidelines as to how much weight is given to each of the statutory factors; the trial court has the discretion to determine what weight should be given each individual factor. In the present action, most of the parties’ assets were controlled by a prenuptial agreement and were not before the district court for distribution. Only two assets were at issue, and there is nothing shocking about the way either asset was distributed. In distributing the brokerage account to husband, the district court merely emphasized one of the statutory factors while in distributing the value of the house, it emphasized another.

The second allegation is that the district court treated the brokerage account and the house as if they were assets governed by the prenuptial agreement. That is not true. As to the brokerage account, the district court found that “the account became ‘marital property’ under the terms of the antenuptial agreement,” and proceeded to distribute the account as part of the divorce. Similarly, the district court found the house to be “subject to equitable division as marital property.” The fact that the brokerage account and more than half of the value of the house were distributed to husband does not equate to treating them as assets governed by the prenuptial agreement.

The property distribution in this divorce will be affirmed because the district court did not abuse its discretion in giving more weight to certain statutory factors than it did to others, and because Wife has not shown the distribution of the two assets at issue to have been such as to shock the conscience of the court or to have been unreasonable under the circumstances.

J. Voigt delivered the opinion for the court.