Igo v. Igo, 88-64

Decision Date23 August 1988
Docket NumberNo. 88-64,88-64
Citation759 P.2d 1253
PartiesJudy Ann IGO, Appellant (Defendant), v. Ronald James IGO, Appellee (Plaintiff).
CourtWyoming Supreme Court

Fred R. Dollison, Sheridan, for appellant.

Dwight F. Hurich of Preuit, Sowada & Hurich, Gillette, for appellee.

Before CARDINE, C.J., and THOMAS, URBIGKIT, MACY and GOLDEN, JJ.

GOLDEN, Justice.

Appellant Judy Ann Igo (wife) appeals a divorce decree entered on January 19, 1988. She argues that the district court abused its discretion in the manner in which the court divided the parties' property. In turn, appellee Ronald James Igo (husband) urges this court to certify, under W.R.A.P. 10.05, that no reasonable cause for appeal existed so that attorney fees and damages will be taxed against wife.

We affirm and refuse to certify that wife had no reasonable cause for appeal.

The parties married on January 19, 1980, in Gillette, Wyoming. Husband had three minor children by a previous marriage. The parties had no children by this marriage. Husband brought into the marriage assets, including real property and a house, worth about $41,000. Wife brought into the marriage assets worth about $13,000. Husband operated a well service business and was solely liable for the indebtedness against it. Husband was the primary bread winner and contributed most of the funds used by the parties. Wife worked at different times and helped husband care for his minor children.

During the marriage husband sold his real property and house and used $15,000 from the sale proceeds for a down payment on a contract for deed on two ten-acre plots of land in Campbell County, Wyoming. He fully paid and satisfied this contract for deed during the marriage. The parties built a home on one of the ten-acre plots against which they owed a mortgage of $99,200. At the time of the divorce the market value of this property was $126,500. The unimproved ten-acre plot was worth $18,300 at the time of the divorce and was unencumbered.

The couple brought automobiles into the marriage and later acquired automobiles. They acquired other personal property, including horses. The parties' eleven horses were worth about $6,175. Two of these horses, "Ten Minus Zero" and "Sugar," together were worth $2,800. The parties owed $5,000 on a horse trailer. At the time of the divorce they had an income tax refund of $14,419.

The parties separated on July 21, 1986. From separation to divorce husband paid about $5,800 to wife for support. Before the divorce the parties substantially divided their personal property and automobiles.

At trial the district court granted husband the divorce decree as the aggrieved party. The district court divided the property and the debts as follows:

Husband

1. Ten-acre plot and house worth $126,500 with $99,200 mortgage.

2. Ten-acre unencumbered plot worth $18,300.

3. Income tax refund worth $4,400.

4. Horses "Ten Minus Zero" and "Sugar," worth about $2,800.

5. Miscellaneous personal property and debts.

6. Debts of his well service.

Wife

1. Income tax refund worth $10,000.

2. Nine horses worth about $3,375.

3. Miscellaneous personal property.

4. No debts.

As a result of this property division, husband received property worth $75,000 to $90,000, and wife received property worth $35,000 to $45,000.

On appeal we review the evidence in favor of appellee husband, giving that evidence every reasonable inference that can be drawn and ignoring appellant wife's evidence. We defer to the trial court's exercise of broad discretion in adjusting the parties' rights and obligations upon marriage dissolution. We will not disturb that decision unless we find that the court abused its discretion. These appellate rules are so well-known that we need not cite supporting authority. We have defined "judicial discretion" as "a composite of many things, among which are conclusions drawn from objective criteria; it means a sound judgment exercised with regard to what is right under the circumstances and without doing so arbitrarily or capriciously * * *."...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Connors v. Connors
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • February 7, 1989
    ...basis for its entry. III. CONTESTED DIVORCE DECREE PROVISIONS We first note our standard on appeal as recently stated in Igo v. Igo, 759 P.2d 1253, 1255 (Wyo.1988): On appeal we review the evidence in favor of [the prevailing party], giving that evidence every reasonable inference that can ......
  • Sparks v. Sparks
    • United States
    • Michigan Supreme Court
    • January 1, 1992
    ...dissolution of a marriage for purposes of determining the division of property, alimony, and an award of attorney fees); Igo v. Igo, 759 P.2d 1253 (Wyo., 1988) (the court has discretion, in the division of property, to consider the fault of the respective parties).22 Alabama, Connecticut, M......
  • Wallop v. Wallop
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • April 27, 2004
    ...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 P.2d 1253 (Wyo. 1988); David v. David, 724 P.2d 1141 (Wyo. 1986); Grosskopf v. Grosskopf, 677 P.2d 814 (Wyo.1984); Paul v. Paul, 616 P.2d 707 (Wyo.19......
  • Crites v. Alston, 91-216
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • August 7, 1992
    ...regard to what is right under the circumstances and without doing so arbitrarily or capriciously * * *." ' " Id. (quoting Igo v. Igo, 759 P.2d 1253, 1255 (Wyo.1988) and Martin v. State, 720 P.2d 894, 897 IV. DISCUSSION Following more than two hours of testimony and discussion at the July 2,......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT