Bailey v. Bailey, s. 96-97
| Citation | 954 P.2d 962 |
| Decision Date | 26 February 1998 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 96-97,96-290,96-289,s. 96-97 |
| Parties | Michael V. BAILEY, Appellant (Defendant), v. Diane L. BAILEY, Appellee (Plaintiff). (Three Cases.) |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming |
Anthony T. Wendtland of Davis & Cannon (argued), Sheridan; and Joel M. Vincent of Vincent & Vincent, Riverton, for Appellant.
Nyla A. Murphy, Laramie, for Appellee.
Before TAYLOR, C.J., and THOMAS, MACY, GOLDEN and LEHMAN, JJ.
This case presents a familiar story of the dissolution of a marriage which Michael V. Bailey (the husband) desires to accomplish as inexpensively to himself as possible. In seeking that goal the primary issue he raises is the valuation of the stock of several closely held corporations, which resulted in a provision of the decree that he pay Diane L. Bailey (the wife) a lump sum of $323,081.50 to balance the division of property between the parties. Other asserted issues include a claim that the district court abused its discretion in determining income for child support; awarding child support based upon the disputed income; arriving at a division of the marital property; and denying a stay of the decree pending appeal. The husband also seeks relief in the form of a schedule of payments for the lump sum awarded in the property settlement. We hold that the value assigned to the corporate stocks was justified by the evidence submitted, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in any of the matters argued by the husband in this Court. The evidence makes a schedule of payments of the lump sum awarded to the wife appropriate. We affirm the valuation of the corporate stocks; the determination of income for purposes of child support; the amount of the child support awarded; and the denial of the stay of the decree pending appeal. We remand the case for a hearing on an appropriate schedule of payments of the property settlement award.
In his Brief of Appellant, the husband articulates the issues in this way:
Property Division
I. Did the trial court err when it valued Husband's interests in family businesses higher than the value they were required to be liquidated for pursuant to binding restrictive sale agreements?
II. Did the trial court err in calculating Husband's base net income for child support purposes?
III. Did the trial court err by including Husband's annual bonus income from R & J Ent., Inc. in his base monthly support calculation?
IV. Did the trial court err by failing to exclude "phantom[ ] income" from Husband's "bonus" child support calculation?
V. Did the trial court err by failing to exclude the net income Husband received from a one-time bonus in 1994 that was used to pay for the parties' home and divided by the trial court in the property division?
VI. Did the trial court fail to apply the proper statutory guideline percentage to the calculation of Husband's "Bonus" support?
VII. Did the trial court err in awarding alimony to Wife in light of the incorrect child support determination, property division and the other circumstances of the case?
VIII. Does the decree contain an improper alimony award to Wife characterized as a division of debt?
IX. Did the trial court err in denying Husband a stay on appeal in the payment of alimony?
In the Brief of Appellee, Diane L. Bailey, a/k/a Diane L. St. Pierre, the wife sets forth these issues:
I. The disposition of property and awards of alimony and child support upon divorce are matters entrusted to the discretion of the trial court. Absent a clear abuse of that discretion, not present in this case, this court should affirm the trial court's decision [.]
A. The trial court properly valued Bailey's interests in the family business, committed no abuse of its discretion and should be affirmed.
B. The trial court's award of alimony is allowed by statute, within its discretion, and is just and equitable under the circumstances of this case.
C. The child support awarded is not an abuse of discretion and was based upon evidence in the record. Therefore, the trial court's award of child support should be affirmed.
A Reply Brief of Appellant, filed by the husband, adds these issue statements:
I. Wife's brief on appeal does not substantively address the Husband's issues with cogent argument.
II. Wife severely misstates matters in the record.
III. Wife has failed to designate any portions of the record on appeal; a number of her references to the record should be stricken.
The husband and the wife were married on December 18, 1982, in Riverton. During the twelve years of their marriage, five children were born. Following their marriage, the wife left her employment at a bank, and became a homemaker, primarily responsible for the rearing of the children. The husband worked long hours for his family businesses, and he provided the main financial support for the family. Not long before the birth of the fifth child, in August of 1994, the husband and the wife separated. In September, the wife filed a Complaint for Legal Separation, and that was followed by a counterclaim for divorce by the husband. After four hearings, the district court entered a Decree of Divorce in December of 1995, but that decree did not address with finality the division of property, the custody of the children, child support, or spousal support. On March 4, 1996, the court entered an Order and Decree, later amended nunc pro tunc on April 8, 1996, settling the property division, custody, child support and alimony issues.
The district court awarded custody of the first child of the marriage to the husband, and the wife was granted custody of the other four children. No appeal is taken with respect to child custody. The husband does appeal from the decisions of the trial court with respect to property valuations and the division of that property, child support, and alimony.
In accordance with WYO. STAT. § 20-2-114 (1977), the court considered the respective merits of the parties, and determined that the wife was the aggrieved party for purposes of a just and equitable division of property. The husband owns a controlling interest in two closely held family businesses and is a stock holder in two more closely held family businesses. The corporations in which he holds a controlling interest are Bad Boys Limited Liability Company (Bad Boys LLC) and Bailey Enterprises, Inc. The other two corporations are R & J Enterprises, Inc. and Grandview Estates. The court found that it was appropriate to divide the value of the ownership interests in these businesses equally between the husband and the wife, while allowing the husband to maintain ownership. In arriving at a valuation of the husband's interests in these corporations, the court primarily accepted the valuations and the discount of those valuations suggested at the trial by the husband's accountant. It then valued the husband's ownership interest as follows:
Company Value
Bad Boys LLC
$432,000 (1994 valuation)
x 72.5% = $313,200.00
Bailey Enterprises. Inc
$780,000 (5/31/94 valuation)
x 55.2% = 430,500.00
R & J Enterprises, Inc
Book Value 12/31/94
$240,124 x 9.36% 22,476.00
Grandview Estates 12,187.00
Using these values for the husband's ownership of the corporate stock and the value of other property that was not disputed, the district court found that the total value of the family property was $950,563.00. In order to balance the distribution of the assets, the court ordered the husband to pay $323,081.50 in cash to the wife within 180 days after March 4, 1996. It is this lump sum payment with respect to which the husband seeks an order permitting the payment of this cash requirement to be scheduled rather than paid in one lump sum.
When determining the income of the parties for purposes of child support, the court found that the husband's monthly net income was $5016.66. Although the wife was not employed, the court imputed income to her of $748.00 per month. The application of the provisions of WYO. STAT. § 20-6-304 (Supp.1995) lead to the court finding that the husband owed $1,611.93 per month as child support. That amount would assume that all five children were living with the wife, but since only four children were living with the wife, the court revised that amount by reducing the monthly payment by $339.00. It appears that the amount required as child support by the husband took into account the imputed income of the wife of $748.00 per month. The court also ruled that it was appropriate to invoke an escalation clause as approved in Madison v. Madison, 859 P.2d 1276 (Wyo.1993), in anticipation of any future increases in the husband's income. The husband then was ordered to pay once a year "bonus support" of 36.6% of his disposable net income which was defined as any W-2 income on his federal tax return that was more than the $5,016.66 per month, plus any other pass through income, or its imputed value.
The husband also appeals the trial court's award of alimony. The court held that the wife required additional funds for retraining and imposed an obligation of $800.00 per month in alimony upon the husband for a period of 8 years. The court specifically found that the husband had the reasonable ability to pay the amounts awarded and a reasonable expectancy of future earnings to meet the fair and equitable property settlement.
There are few rules more firmly established in our jurisprudence than the proposition that the disposition of marital property, the calculation of income for child support purposes, and the granting of alimony all are within the sound discretion of the trial court. Examples of cases that articulate those propositions are Scherer v. Scherer, 931 P.2d 251, 254 (Wyo.1997); Triggs v. Triggs, 920 P.2d 653, 656 (Wyo.1996); Kennedy v. Kennedy, 761 P.2d 995 (Wyo.1988)(giving the review standard...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wallop v. Wallop
...Breitenstine v. Breitenstine, 2003 WY 16, 62 P.3d 587 (Wyo.2003); McCulloh v. Drake, 2001 WY 56, 24 P.3d 1162 (Wyo.2001); Bailey v. Bailey, 954 P.2d 962 (Wyo.1998); Neuman, at 582; Overcast v. Overcast, 780 P.2d 1371 (Wyo.1989); Sellers v. Sellers, 775 P.2d 1029 (Wyo.1989); Igo v. Igo, 759 ......
-
Breitenstine v. Breitenstine
...from consideration evidence presented by the unsuccessful party. Johnson v. Johnson, 11 P.3d 948, 950 (Wyo.2000) (citing Bailey v. Bailey, 954 P.2d 962, 965 (Wyo.1998); Grosskopf v. Grosskopf, 677 P.2d 814, 818 DISCUSSION Inherited Assets [¶ 8] Husband claims the trial court erred in the di......
-
Snyder v. Snyder
...to Husband because he is entitled to a credit against the $100, 000 he owes Wife for each payment he makes. Cf. Bailey v. Bailey, 954 P.2d 962, 966 (Wyo. 1998) (the district court abused its discretion by requiring husband to pay the wife a large lump sum payment within 180 days from the da......
-
Marquis v. Marquis
..., 859 P.2d 1276, 1281 n.4 (Wyo. 1993). We considered the question of phantom income in the context of child support in Bailey v. Bailey , 954 P.2d 962, 967 (Wyo. 1998). In Bailey , the father made distributions to himself from his family corporations. Id. He argued that the district court h......
-
§ 10.03 Goodwill
...Ohio App.3d 668, 656 N.E.2d 399 (1995). Washington: Suther v. Suther, 28 Wash. App. 838, 627 P.2d 110 (1981). Wyoming: Bailey v. Bailey, 954 P.2d 962 (Wyo. 1998). [291] See: California: In re Marriage of Quay, 18 Cal. App.4th 961, 22 Cal. Rptr.2d 537 (1993). Texas: Dillon v. Anderson, 358 S......