Cross v. Cross, 4900
| Decision Date | 08 November 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 4900,4900 |
| Citation | 586 P.2d 547 |
| Parties | William A. CROSS, Appellant (Defendant below), v. Virginia L. CROSS, Appellee (Plaintiff below). |
| Court | Wyoming Supreme Court |
J. Patrick Hand, of Hand, Hand & Hand, Casper, for appellant.
Earl R. Johnson, Jr., Casper, for appellee.
Before GUTHRIE, C. J., and McCLINTOCK, RAPER, THOMAS and ROSE, JJ.
This appeal is taken from only that part of a Judgment and Decree in a divorce action which adjudicates a division of property. The primary issue which is presented is whether the trial court abused its discretion in the valuation and disposition of stock in a family owned corporation which is engaged in the ranching business. Included and collateral issues are presented concerning the sufficiency of the evidence; credit for temporary alimony; the appointment of a master; and the award of attorney's fees to the plaintiff wife. We shall affirm the judgment because we conclude there was no abuse of the discretion which is vested by law in the trial court.
The appellant husband is engaged primarily in the ranching business. He is a minority, but substantial, shareholder in the family owned corporate ranching business. He also serves as a director of a bank and a member of the state legislature. He receives a salary of $1,000 per month from the ranching corporation which is supplemented by trespass fees paid for the privilege of hunting big game animals on that part of the corporate land which he manages. He is paid a fee for each director's meeting of the bank that he attends, and he receives the statutory salary and per diem for his service in state legislature. The husband was awarded custody of the son of the parties, and became responsible for his support. The appellee wife is employed as a school nurse. She receives a salary of $8,900 per year and approximately $70 per month from part-time nursing at the hospital. She was awarded custody of the two daughters of the parties, and became responsible for their support.
The parties are in accord that the property which they owned was divided as follows, with some values assigned by the court as indicated below:
Property Item Value Husband Wife
--------------------------------- ------------------ ------- ------
Family home in Douglas $50,000 ... All
1975 Mercury Cougar automobile $ 6,000 ... All
1976 Ford Granada automobile No value specified All
Furniture-family home in $ 2,500 ... All
Douglas
Furniture-family ranch home No value specified All
southwest of Doublas
together with a silver tray
Florida Lands being purchased No value specified All
and subject to a mortgage
Other ranch lands being purchased No value specified All
by husband and others
Corporate stock in Williams H. No value specified All ...
Cross & Sons, Inc.
440 shares stock of the First $80 per share 200 240
National Bank of Douglas shares shares
In addition, the Judgment and Decree required the husband to pay to the wife the sum of $72,300 in ten equal annual installments plus interest at the legal rate. The Judgment and Decree discloses a clear intention on the part of the trial court that the wife was to receive $150,000, or its equivalent in specific property, and that she was to assume no responsibility for existing debts of the parties. The husband was charged with all of the debts of the parties which he aggregates at $60,427, and in addition he was required to pay attorney's fees of $1,000 to the wife. He was charged with the payment of two-thirds, and she was charged with the payment of one-third of the fees of the court appointed master and the appraisers who were employed by the master. Those expenses were approximately $10,000.
The issues as stated by the husband in his brief as appellant are as follows:
1. Did the trial court abuse its discretion in dividing the property of the parties?
2. Is the decision of the trial court supported by sufficient evidence?
3. Is appellant entitled to credit for alimony paid to appellee?
4. Did the trial court abuse its discretion in appointing a master and/or appraiser; and if not, was its division for payment thereof an abuse?
5. Does the record support the award of attorney fees to be paid by appellant?
The major claim of the husband is that the property division made by the court is so disparate based upon what he asserts to be a proper valuation of the corporate stock of William H. Cross and Sons, Inc., that there is a manifest abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court. His second argument is a corollary of this major claim to the effect that the evidence does not justify a valuation of corporate stock which would avoid his claim of an abuse of discretion because of the unequal disposition of the property.
The evidence does vary substantially as to the value of the corporate stock. The report of the court appointed master places the value at $311,646. That value was premised upon the inclusion in the corporate assets of land owned by the husband's parents, although apparently it was used in the ranching operation. The appraiser valued that land at $580,000, and deleting the land from the corporate assets has the effect of reducing the value of the corporate shares by 49.76 cents per share. This would leave a value of $202,300 for the husband's share, based upon the formula used in the master's report.
The accountant for the corporation testified to a value of 30.46 cents per share based on his development of a going...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Alston v. Alston
...Papuchis, 2 Va.App. 130, 132, 341 S.E.2d 829, 831 (1986); Lacey v. Lacey, 45 Wis.2d 378, 382, 173 N.W.2d 142, 145 (1970); Cross v. Cross, 586 P.2d 547, 549 (Wyo.1978).12 In McAlear, Judge Davidson for the Court stated (298 Md. at 347, 469 A.2d at 1270);"We recognize ... that there is an int......
-
Begley v. Begley
...126, ¶ 7, 311 P.3d 141, 143 (Wyo. 2013) (quoting Metz v. Metz, 2003 WY 3, ¶ 6, 61 P.3d 383, 385 (Wyo. 2003) ). See also , Cross v. Cross, 586 P.2d 547, 549 (Wyo. 1978) ("This court steadfastly and repeatedly has refused to readjudicate property divisions made in divorce cases."). We will fi......
-
Priebe v. Priebe
...66 Or.App. 284, 673 P.2d 1360, 1364 (1983) (holding it is appropriate to apply a discount to a closely held corporation); Cross v. Cross, 586 P.2d 547, 549 (Wyo.1978) (applying a minority discount to the valuation of a family owned corporate ranching business). ¶16 Courts in other jurisdict......
-
Cobane v. Cobane
...66 Or. App. 284, 673 P.2d 1360, 1364 (1983) ; In re Marriage of Jorgensen , 180 Mont. 294, 590 P.2d 606, 610 (1979) ; and Cross v. Cross , 586 P.2d 547, 549 (Wyo. 1978).4 Kentucky Revised ...