Summary 2010 WY 163

Summary of Decision December 15, 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: McMurry v. McMurry

Citation: 2010 WY 163

Docket Number: S-10-0039

URL: http://tinyurl.com/3amf7cm

Appeal from the District Court of Sublette County, The Honorable Marvin L. Tyler, Judge

Representing Appellant (Plaintiff): Weston W. Reeves and Anna Reeves Olson, Park Street Law Office, Casper, Wyoming. Argument by Mr. Reeves.

Representing Appellee (Defendant): Kim D. Cannon and Alison Ochs of Davis & Cannon, Sheridan, Wyoming. Argument by Mr. Cannon.

Date of Decision: December 15, 2010

Facts: Appellant (Husband) challenges the Decree of Divorce entered of record by the district court. There are very few facts in dispute. The principal source of controversy in this case arises because much of the marital estate was amassed through gifts from Husband’s father. The district court resolved the disputes over the division of the marital estate in an 18 page Decision Letter and a nine-page Decree of Divorce. The district court divided the marital estate into, more or less, two equal shares. In addition, the district court ordered that Husband pay to wife for her attorney’s fees and court costs.

Issues: Whether the district court’s conclusion that Husband intended to gift one-half of his overriding royalty interests to Wife is clearly erroneous. Whether the district court abused its discretion by allocating one-half of the parties’ combined estates to Wife. Whether the district court erred by awarding Wife attorney’s fees when she plainly did not need them to defend the action.

Holdings: The district court gave full recognition to the circumstance that Husband received gifts from his father. However, even if the property was Husband’s separate property, it was still within the jurisdiction of the district court to divide between husband and wife, incidental to dissolution of the marriage and the distribution of all marital assets. Although previous cases have never held that “equitable” means “equal,” likewise the Court have never held that “equal” shares are not “equitable.” Previous cases are very clear on the point contested by Husband, i.e., all property of the parties is subject to distribution. The Court held that the distribution of assets fashioned by the district court was not an abuse of discretion, and it did not shock the conscience of the Court.

The award of attorney’s fees in cases such as this is not designed to punish one party or the other, it is only designed to allow for the payment of such attorney’s fees, within the sound discretion of the district court, in those circumstances where the expenditures become “necessary” for a party because that party has no choice but to incur the expenses in defending against, or pursuing, a complaint for divorce. The district court did not abuse its discretion by ordering an award of attorney’s fees to Wife.

The Court affirmed the decree of divorce in all respects, as well as the award of attorney’s fees.

J. Hill delivered the opinion for the court.