Summary 2010 WY 169

Summary of Decision December 21, 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: Zaloudek v. Zaloudek

Citation: 2010 WY 169

Docket Number: S-10-0068

URL: http://tinyurl.com/2f35huv

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

Representing Appellant (Defendant): William L. Combs of Combs Law Office, L.L.C., Evanston, Wyoming

Representing Appellee (Plaintiff): Richard J. Mulligan of Mulligan Law Office; and Heather Noble, Jackson, Wyoming

Date of Decision: December 21, 2010

Facts: Appellant (Husband) and Appellee (Wife) divorced in 2008. As part of the divorce decree, Husband was ordered to pay a certain dollar sum to Wife to equalize assets. Husband did not make a material payment until more than a year after the divorce decree was entered. Husband herein appeals the district court’s order requiring him to pay interest on the amount he owed from the date of the rendition of the divorce decree.

Issues: Whether improper interest was added to awards to Appellee from Appellant’s IRA accounts that were not yet due during the period in which those accounts were frozen and in the control of the Court by Appellee’s Writ of Garnishment, and improperly require an immediate lump sum cash payment of the total amount? Whether the lower Court abused its discretion by improperly allowing attorney fees and costs to Appellee for claimed enforcement efforts that served to delay resolution of Decree compliance issues?

Holdings: The application of § 1-16-102 clearly requires payment from the date of rendition. A district court must expressly set a different date for payment of a judgment in order to override the application of the statute. Also, the garnishment of funds is not equivalent to a party depositing money with a court. The Court found that the district court did not abuse its discretion by ordering Husband to pay judgment interest from the date of rendition of the divorce decree. The Court further found the issue of attorney fees was still pending before the district court at the time of this appeal and was thus not appealable. Affirmed.

J. Golden delivered the opinion for the court.