Hurd v. Nelson
Decision Date | 21 February 1986 |
Docket Number | No. 85-92,85-92 |
Parties | Dale H. HURD, Appellant (Defendant), v. Darla Mae NELSON, formerly Darla Mae Hurd, Appellee (Plaintiff). |
Court | Wyoming Supreme Court |
David A. Hampton, Rock Springs, for appellant.
Dennis L. Sanderson, Afton, for appellee.
Before THOMAS, C.J., and BROWN, CARDINE, and URBIGKIT, JJ., and ROONEY, J. (Ret).
This appeal results from an order wherein the district court found appellant Dale Hurd liable to appellee Darla Mae Nelson (formerly Darla Mae Hurd) for appellant's breach of the parties' stipulation and settlement agreement. Such agreement was entered into between the parties pursuant to their divorce and made a part of the divorce decree. Appellant raises the following issue for our consideration:
"Whether the trial Court abused its discretion in awarding Plaintiff $12,500.00 for Defendant's breach of the Stipulation and Settlement Agreement for failure to remodel the parties' house and to complete the construction of the shop building for the Plaintiff."
We will affirm.
The parties were divorced on June 8, 1981. On May 22, 1981, the parties signed a stipulation and settlement agreement which was incorporated into the divorce decree. This agreement provided, inter alia, the following:
Appellant did contribute between $2,000 and $3,000 for the remodeling of the house, as well as another $800 expenditure for basement carpeting. He testified, however, that he estimated it would take an additional $6,000 to complete the remodeling of the house.
Appellant contributed approximately $12,000 in materials for the construction of the shop, but did not pay for any labor, except $700 which was paid by appellant to a contractor who did some work on the shop. Members of appellee's church eventually erected the shop at no charge.
Appellee then filed a petition for order to show cause why the terms of the divorce decree should not be enforced. 1 Appellee sought to collect from appellant the costs of remodeling the house and the construction of the shop. After a hearing on the matter, the court rendered judgment finding, inter alia:
As previously noted, appellant asks whether the trial court abused its discretion in awarding appellee $12,500 for appellant's alleged breach of the agreement. We have oft stated our applicable standards of review. When reviewing cases on appeal, we accept the evidence presented by the prevailing party as true, leaving out of consideration entirely evidence presented by the unsuccessful party in conflict therewith, giving every favorable inference that fairly and reasonably may be drawn from the successful party's evidence. Stockton v. Sowerwine, Wyo., 690 P.2d 1202 (1984); and Zanetti v. Zanetti, Wyo., 689 P.2d 1116 (1984). Furthermore, a trial court's findings carry with them every finding of fact that fairly and reasonably can be drawn therefrom. Zanetti v. Zanetti, supra; and Meeker v. Lanham, Wyo., 604 P.2d 556 (1979).
Turning to the facts of this case, appellant admitted he was responsible for contributing up to $10,000 for the remodeling of the house. He further testified he had contributed between $2,000 and $3,000 toward such end, but he estimated the total cost of remodeling the house would be $6,000. And he admitted that he had not paid the full cost of remodeling up to $10,000 as he expressly agreed to. Appellee testified there was still work to be done on the house to complete its remodeling. She also testified she borrowed $3,000 to pay a contractor for his work and appellant never paid her the $3,000 she borrowed.
Appellee testified she could not afford to pay for the cost of labor to construct the shop, even though appellant purchased the materials, so her church members eventually did the work for her free of charge.
In its closing remarks, the court stated the basis for awarding appellee $12,500:
Appellant contends the court awarded appellee a windfall by awarding her damages for labor in the construction of the shop which was provided free of charge by members of appellee's church. It is generally recognized in tort law that compensation received by the plaintiff from a collateral source, wholly independent of the wrongdoer, cannot be deducted from the damages for which the defendant is liable. Such proposition is commonly referred to as the collateral source rule or doctrine.
* * * "25 C.J.S. Damages § 99(a), p. 1011 (1966).
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Gill v. Lockhart
...they are called upon to do so." Ultra Res., Inc. v. Hartman , 2015 WY 40, ¶ 10, 346 P.3d 880, 886–87 (Wyo. 2015) (quoting Hurd v. Nelson , 714 P.2d 767, 771 (Wyo. 1986) ). Where the terms of a judgment are ambiguous or indefinite, the court that entered the judgment has the inherent power t......
-
Nisenzon v. Morgan Stanley Dw, Inc., Civil Action No. 05-5832.
...620, 544 N.W.2d 278, 286 (1996) (holding that "collateral source rule does not apply in cases of common-law contract"); Hurd v. Nelson, 714 P.2d 767, 771 (Wyo.1986) (noting that "payment from a collateral source may satisfy a contractual obligation"); 22 Am.Jur.2d Damages § 568 (1988) (list......
-
Mantle v. N. Star Energy & Constr., LLC
...setoff, they relied on the district court's inherent power to enforce its judgment by ordering an equitable setoff. See Hurd v. Nelson, 714 P.2d 767, 771 (Wyo. 1986) ("Courts have inherent power to enforce their own judgments and should see to it that such judgments are enforced when they a......
-
Estate of Weeks v. Weeks-Rohner
...it shall be enforced. * * * " 46 Am.Jur.2d Judgments § 898, p. 1032 (1969). Ultra Res. , ¶ 10, 346 P.3d at 887 (quoting Hurd v. Nelson , 714 P.2d 767 (Wyo. 1986) ).[¶ 36] Neither party questioned the inherent authority of the district court to enforce its order. Neither party raised any que......