France v. France, 94-225

• Citation: 902 P.2d 701
• Decision Date: 12 September 1995
• Docket Number: No. 94-225,94-225
• Parties: Gregory Alan FRANCE, Appellant (Plaintiff), v. Kathie Sue FRANCE, Appellee (Defendant).
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming

Page 701

902 P.2d 701

Gregory Alan FRANCE, Appellant (Plaintiff), v. Kathie Sue FRANCE, Appellee (Defendant).

No. 94-225.

Supreme Court of Wyoming.

Sept. 12, 1995.

Frank J. Jones, Wheatland, for appellant.

David D. Uchner, Cheyenne, and James N. Wolfe, Cheyenne, for appellee.

Before GOLDEN, C.J., and THOMAS, MACY, TAYLOR and LEHMAN, JJ.

THOMAS, Justice.

The only issue in this case arises from a disparate division of the property of the parties by the district court in granting a divorce. Gregory Alan France, the husband (husband), asserts the division of the property was so unequal an abuse of discretion by the district court is manifest from that fact alone. In order to magnify the disparate division, the husband also disputes the valuation assigned by the trial court to stock in a ranching corporation. The trial court set over to Kathie Sue France, the wife (wife), as her separate property the stock in the ranching corporation and traceable cash she had inherited from her parents, a diamond ring she had inherited from her grandmother, other property she had inherited, and property she brought to the marriage. We hold, when all of the statutory factors which the trial court is entitled to consider in making a property division in a divorce are taken into account, there was no abuse of discretion by the district court. We affirm the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Decree of Divorce entered in the district court.

In the Brief of Appellant, filed in behalf of the husband, the issue is stated in this way:

Did the trial court abuse its discretion in distributing the marital estate by awarding 93.72% ($1,380,630.00) of the marital estate to the wife and 6.28% ($92,456.00) to the husband?

In the wife's Brief of Appellee, the following issues appear:

I. Whether or not the trial court accurately considered the respective merits of the parties and the condition in which they and their daughter of tender age would be left following the divorce.

II. Whether or not a proper determination was made concerning through whom the property was acquired and the burden imposed upon the property for the benefit of either party and the child.

By the time the case went to trial, the only matter in dispute between husband and wife was the division of their property. Following the trial, the district court entered detailed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Decree of Divorce. The Findings of Fact pertinent to this appeal are:

8. The parties own 10,985.3 shares of stock in Petsch and Rollins, Inc. Petsch and Rollins, Inc. is a closely-held ranching corporation which was established and operated by the Defendant's parents. The stock ownership is divided between Plaintiff and Defendant pursuant to an estate tax minimization plan.

9. All but 790 shares of the Petsch and Rollins, Inc. stock was inherited by Defendant from her parents in 1991. The balance of the stock was gifted to Defendant by her parents.

10. After inheriting the stock, Defendant gifted a portion of it to Plaintiff in 1992 pursuant to the parties' estate plan.

* * * * * *

14. The parties hold a promissory note from Petsch and Rollins, Inc. in the principal amount of $130,000.00. The cash loaned pursuant to the note was inherited by Defendant from her parents' estate in 1991.

15. The Defendant holds an Individual Retirement Account, valued at $19,550.00, which consists entirely of funds inherited from the Defendant's mother in 1991.

The trial court, in its Conclusions of Law, stated:

28. The division of property need not be equal to be equitable and the Court should view many factors in arriving at its decision relative to the division of property including, but not limited to:

a. Length of marriage;

b. The length of time the parties have owned the respective property and whether they have contributed to its increase in value if it was at one time the separate property of the other;

c. The merits of the parties' position;

d. The party through whom the property was acquired;

e. Also, the condition in which either of the parties or the children may be left after the distribution and the need of the property for the benefit of one or the other parties or their children. W.S. § 20-2-114 (1977), Bricker v. Bricker, Slip Opinion 93-200 July 13, 1994.

29. Based upon the appropriate factors for consideration in property division, as set forth in finding no. 28, above, the property given to or inherited by the Defendant from her parents should be set over to the Defendant. Such property includes all stock in Petsch and Rollins, Inc., the promissory note from Petsch and Rollins, Inc., the IRA, the coin collections and the silver dollars. The respective merits of the parties, the source and time of acquisition of such property, and the fact that the parties have not contributed to any increase in value of such property support this conclusion.

30. The Defendant should receive the ring she inherited from her grandmother.

31. The other property of the parties should be divided between them as indicated on attached Exhibit "A".

The Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law demonstrate that, aside from the stock in the ranching corporation, the cash traceable to the wife's inheritance from her parents, and other property inherited by the wife, the trial court divided the property by awarding property worth approximately $95,256 to the husband and property worth approximately $82,827 to the wife.

After the decree was entered by the trial court, the husband filed a Motion to Make Additional Findings and Conclusions of Law and a Motion for New Trial on Issue of Property Distribution. The trial court reaffirmed its earlier findings with some clarification, and the motion for new trial was denied. The husband then appealed the case to this court.

In resolving the question of whether the trial court committed an abuse of discretion with respect to the division of property, we begin with the pertinent statute, WYO.STAT. § 20-2-114 (1994), which provides:

In granting a divorce, the court shall make such disposition of the property of the parties as appears just and equitable, having regard for the respective merits of the parties and the condition in which they will be left by the divorce, the party through whom the property was acquired and the burdens imposed upon the property for the benefit of either party and children. * * *.

In Lund v. Lund, 849 P.2d 731, 738-39 (1993), we summarized prior cases relating to the division of marital property, saying:

We have held, on numerous occasions, that the division of marital property is within the discretion of the trial court and, absent a manifest abuse of that discretion, we do not disturb that result. Neuman v. Neuman, 842 P.2d 575 (Wyo.1992); Mair v. Mair, 823 P.2d 538 (Wyo.1992) (citing Williams v. Williams, 817 P.2d 884 (Wyo.1991); and Blanchard v. Blanchard, 770 P.2d 227 (Wyo.1989)). The trial court determines the appropriate disposition of the marital property and alimony under the statute as an exercise of its sound discretion. Kennedy v. Kennedy, 761 P.2d 995 (Wyo.1988) (citing Broadhead v. Broadhead, 737 P.2d 731 (Wyo.1987)). Our rule is that an abuse of discretion occurs when the disposition shocks the conscience of the court and appears so unfair and inequitable that reasonable persons could not abide it. Neuman; Grosskopf v. Grosskopf, 677 P.2d 814 (Wyo.1984) (citing Paul v. Paul, 616 P.2d 707 (Wyo.1980), and Kane v. Kane, 577 P.2d 172 (Wyo.1978)). In applying these standards, we review the evidence on appeal in the favor of the successful party below, ignoring the evidence of the unsuccessful party, and granting the successful party every reasonable inference that can be drawn from the record. Kennedy (citing Grosskopf ).

The property which is subject to division under our statute consists of property which is the product of the marital union and was acquired during the course of the marriage by the joint efforts of the parties. The statute requires such property to be disposed of in a just and equitable manner between the parties in the exercise of judicial discretion. We have held a just and equitable division is as likely as not to be unequal. Blanchard v. Blanchard, 770 P.2d 227 (Wyo.1989). WYO.STAT. § 20-2-114 includes as a factor, "the party through whom the property was acquired * * *." In Warren v. Warren, 361 P.2d 525 (Wyo.1961), we held property, which was inherited by or given to that party, can properly be awarded to the party by whom it was inherited or given. In Paul v. Paul, 616 P.2d 707 (Wyo.1980), we held it is not an abuse of discretion to award to a party the property he brought to the marriage.

We examine the factual situation before the court in this case in light of this statute and its previous interpretation. The Frances' marriage endured for twenty years. They were married on December 29, 1973, and the husband filed for divorce on February 4, 1994, seeking equitable division of their property. The husband finished college at the end of the fall term in 1975 and took a job in Laramie until the wife graduated in the spring of 1976. They then moved to the Petsch and Rollins ranch located near Lingle. The ranch was owned by a closely-held corporation, the stock of which was owned by the wife's parents and her grandfather. The husband worked full-time for the corporation for seventeen and one-half years as a ranch hand. The wife's father made the management decisions for the ranch during that period of time, and the husband was paid a salary which grew from $800 per month to $2,100 per month. This was above the average salary for ranch hands. In addition, he had the benefit of a house, utilities, and gasoline. The wife worked on the ranch part-time during busy seasons and, after a year and a half, she began working, also part-time, at Eastern Wyoming Community College. That position developed into a full-time position and was a source of some of the marital discord....