Harkins v. Harkins, 95-248

• Decision Date: 23 May 1996
• Docket Number: No. 95-248,95-248
• Citation: 917 P.2d 176
• Parties: Janet K. HARKINS, Appellant (Defendant), v. Vernon D. HARKINS, Appellee (Plaintiff).
• Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Page 176

917 P.2d 176

Janet K. HARKINS, Appellant (Defendant), v. Vernon D. HARKINS, Appellee (Plaintiff).

No. 95-248.

Supreme Court of Wyoming.

May 23, 1996.

James K. Lubing, Jackson, for appellant.

W. Keith Goody of Goody & Brodie Law Office, Jackson, for appellee.

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

GOLDEN, Chief Justice.

We review a district court's order granting a divorce and distributing the marital assets of Janet K. Harkins (wife) and Vernon D. Harkins (husband). Wife contends the district court abused its discretion in awarding wife a disproportionately small percentage of the parties' marital assets.

We affirm.

Wife raises this issue:

I. Did the trial court abuse its discretion, by committing an error of law, when it awarded the appellant approximately forty-six thousand Dollars ($46,000.00) from a marital estate with an approximate value of five hundred thousand Dollars ($500,000.00) by requiring appellant to quitclaim her interest in two parcels of real estate, which appellee had conveyed, by execution and delivery of valid deeds, to appellant and himself as tenants by the entireties during their marriage?

Husband restates the issue:

I. Did the trial court abuse its discretion when it divided the marital property?

The appellee does not agree that the marital estate has "an approximate value of five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000.00)." The value of the marital estate is, rather, $61,076.00.

The parties were married on November 23, 1986. No children were born to the marriage. It was husband's second marriage and he was 59 years old at the time of the divorce. He was retired and received a net monthly pension benefit of just over $2,300.00. That pension is increased occasionally by cost-of-living adjustments. Husband was not in good health. The parties owned a lot on a golf course and a partially completed residence which we will refer to as the Cache Creek property. Husband owned both properties prior to the marriage, but improvements were made to the Cache Creek property during the marriage. The parties had other assets including cars, savings and checking accounts, and other personal property. Wife was approximately 41 years old at the time of the divorce and this was her third marriage. Although she was employed outside the home at times during the marriage, she essentially managed the marital residence and moved with her husband in his profession, including the move to Jackson upon husband's retirement. Wife assisted husband in accomplishing many of the improvements to the Cache Creek property and a part of the money used to pay for materials, etc., came from the sale of the home they lived in prior to moving to Jackson. Although the exact figures are hotly disputed, for purposes of argument we accept wife's suggestion that the combined assets of the parties at the time of the divorce were worth approximately $500,000.00 and wife received cash and other property worth approximately $46,000.00. The order of the district court granting the divorce and distributing the marital estate was entered on June 9, 1995.

Wife's principal contention is that the district court failed to take into account the burden placed on the property for the benefit of both parties, i.e., the fact that husband had deeded the property to the two of them as husband and wife. In making this contention, wife relies on Paul v. Paul, 616 P.2d 707, 712 (Wyo.1980), where we said: "Joint ownership of property resulting from a demonstrated intent to...