Malli v. Malli
| Decision Date | 24 March 2020 |
| Docket Number | S-19-0198 |
| Citation | 460 P.3d 245 |
| Parties | Steven Wynne MALLI, Appellant (Defendant), v. Jonela Skye MALLI, Appellee (Plaintiff). |
| Court | Wyoming Supreme Court |
Representing Appellant: Stacy M. Kirven, Kirven Law, LLC, Sheridan, Wyoming.
Representing Appellee: Seth Shumaker, Seth Shumaker Attorney at Law, Sheridan, Wyoming.
Before DAVIS, C.J., and FOX, KAUTZ, BOOMGAARDEN, and GRAY, JJ.
[¶1] For the eighteen years of their marriage, Steven and Jonela Malli lived on a 160-acre parcel of land owned by Mr. Malli’s parents. In 2017, Mr. Malli’s parents deeded the parcel to Mr. Malli. In 2018, Mrs. Malli filed for divorce. After a bench trial, the district court entered a divorce decree in which it awarded the 160-acre parcel to Mrs. Malli and required Mr. Malli to satisfy any unpaid property taxes. The district court noted that it had considered Mrs. Malli’s requests for an award of attorney’s fees during the proceedings in arriving at its division of property. Mr. Malli contends the district court erred in awarding the parcel to Mrs. Malli, and he challenges the division of debt. He also claims the district court erred when it considered attorney’s fees in making its property division.
[¶2] We affirm.
[¶3] We condense and rephrase the appellant’s issues as follows:
[¶4] Mr. and Mrs. Malli married on May 12, 2001. They had three children and made a living from their owner-operated trucking company and by running a small herd of cows. Mrs. Malli was the primary caregiver for the children and sporadically held various jobs outside the home.1 The parties had limited assets.
[¶5] Mr. Malli’s parents owned a 160-acre parcel of land that has been in Mr. Malli’s family for many years and adjoins other land owned by his parents or relatives. With permission from Mr. Malli’s parents, the parties placed a manufactured home on the parcel and resided at this location throughout their marriage. In 2017, Mr. Malli’s parents deeded the 160-acre parcel to Mr. Malli in his name only.
[¶6] During the marriage, Mr. Malli purchased a one-quarter interest in land located in Campbell County, Wyoming, also owned by his family (Campbell County land). His interest was valued at $91,385. Mr. Malli financed the purchase with a loan from his mother.2 Mrs. Malli owns a one-half interest in grazing land in Montana that she inherited from her family, valued at $44,136.00. The parties owned their home situated on the 160-acre parcel, but no definitive evidence of its value was presented to the district court.3 The marital estate consisted almost entirely of the real property and the trucking and cattle operations.
[¶7] Mrs. Malli filed for divorce in 2018. Over the course of the proceedings, Mr. Malli largely failed to comply with discovery requirements. Mrs. Malli requested financial affidavits, revenue information from the businesses, income verification, and tax documents. Mr. Malli submitted a financial affidavit with an attachment entitled "Estimated Tax Report," but the income portion of the affidavit was blank, and the expenses were not supported by evidence. He refused to provide an itemization of assets that he had transferred or disposed of after the parties separated. As a result, Mrs. Malli filed three contempt of court motions asking for sanctions. Wyoming Rule of Civil Procedure 37 authorizes the court to order the disobedient party to pay reasonable expenses or attorney’s fees, and while Mrs. Malli asked for these, the district court did not award attorney’s fees or costs.
[¶8] The parties participated in mediation and reached an agreement as to child custody and visitation, but reserved issues of property and debt division for trial.4 The district court held a one-day bench trial on April 15, 2019.
[¶9] A significant portion of the proceedings was devoted to ascertaining the extent of the marital estate.5 Mrs. Malli testified that Mr. Malli concealed, transferred, and sold off personal and marital assets while the divorce was pending. After the parties separated, Mr. Malli removed the cows from the marital property, and Mrs. Malli could not keep track of them. She claimed Mr. Malli attempted to conceal the number of cows the parties owned by branding calves with his mother’s brand. Mrs. Malli testified he blocked her from outbuildings where property was stored by locking the doors and parking a vehicle in front of an entrance. She asserted that Mr. Malli prevented her from inventorying the contents of the parties’ semi-truck, which led to a physical altercation where Mr. Malli grabbed her by the throat and pushed her. She claimed that Mr. Malli restricted her access to financial records and that he confiscated and possibly burned documents related to the trucking company. She testified that in 2017, Mr. Malli took her name off their shared business and checking accounts.
[¶10] In contrast, Mr. Malli asserted that any assets he transferred were not concealed but sold as part of their oldest son’s business selling and trading items online. Mr. Malli testified that it was not unusual for him to brand the cows with other family members’ brands. He admitted that he had placed locks on certain outbuildings and blocked one with a vehicle but claimed he did so to prevent Mrs. Malli from removing property stored in those buildings. Mr. Malli agreed that he had prevented Mrs. Malli from inventorying the semi-truck but denied the physical altercation. He provided no explanation for the expenses listed on his affidavit and did not offer any business records into evidence at trial. He stated he did not know the annual revenue of the businesses and had never kept track of those figures.
[¶11] The district court entered a Decree of Divorce on May 31, 2019, awarding primary physical custody of two children to Mrs. Malli, primary custody of one child to Mr. Malli, and ordering Mr. Malli to pay child support. At issue here is the district court’s division of the marital property and debts.
[¶12] The district court adopted Mrs. Malli’s proposed division of personal assets and observed that the Mallis had very few marital assets to divide. It found that because Mr. Malli "has sold, transferred, or hidden assets while this action was pending, and likely throughout the marriage," that "[t]he exact amount of marital property can likely not be determined." The court awarded the 160-acre parcel and home to Mrs. Malli subject to the indebtedness thereon, stating "[w]hile the Court appreciates that the [160-acre parcel] has been in [Mr. Malli’s] family for many years, the parties do not have other known assets that could comprise [Mrs. Malli’s] equitable share of the marital estate." The court awarded Mr. Malli the parties’ business assets, noting The court then awarded Mrs. Malli her interest in the Montana land and granted Mr. Malli his interest in the Campbell County land. In a footnote, the district court noted it had considered attorney’s fees in its property division.6 Regarding division of debt, the court found that it was unclear whether the parties owed unpaid property taxes on the 160-acre parcel, and in what amount. It concluded "[i]n the event that these debts exist," they "should be assigned to [Mr. Malli]." It assigned all other debts on the home and 160-acre parcel to Mrs. Malli.
[¶13] Mr. Malli timely appealed.
[¶14] The disposition of marital property is committed to the sound discretion of the district court. "Judicial discretion is a composite of many things, among which are conclusions drawn from objective criteria; it means exercising sound judgment with regard to what is right under the circumstances and without doing so arbitrarily or capriciously." Kamm v. Kamm , 2016 WY 8, ¶ 3, 365 P.3d 779, 780–81 (Wyo. 2016) (citations omitted). The focus of our analysis is whether the district court could reasonably conclude as it did. Porter v. Porter , 2017 WY 77, ¶ 12, 397 P.3d 196, 198 (Wyo. 2017). In determining this question, "we consider only the evidence in favor of the successful party, ignore the evidence of the unsuccessful party, and grant to the successful party every reasonable inference that can be drawn from the record." Id. (citation omitted). We will find an abuse of discretion only when "the property disposition shocks the conscience of this court and appears to be so unfair and inequitable that reasonable people cannot abide it." Long v. Long , 2018 WY 26, ¶ 22, 413 P.3d 117, 125 (Wyo. 2018) (citations omitted).
[¶15] Mr. Malli first argues that the district court abused its discretion when it awarded Mrs. Malli the 160-acre parcel. He contends that because the land was a gift to him from his parents, it should have been awarded to him.
[¶16] The trial court is vested with considerable discretion to fashion a property distribution "appropriate to the peculiar circumstances of the case," given that it is in a better position than the appellate court to judge the respective merits and needs of the parties. McMurry v. McMurry , 2010 WY 163, ¶¶ 8–9, 245 P.3d 316, 319–20 (Wyo. 2010) (citation omitted). Wyoming Statute § 20-2-114 governs the distribution of property upon divorce. It directs that:
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...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Begley v. Begley
...in a divorce. Stevens v. Stevens, 2014 WY 23, ¶ 7, 318 P.3d 802, 805 (Wyo. 2014). See also, Malli v. Malli, 2020 WY 42, ¶ 21, 460 P.3d 245, 250 (Wyo. 2020) (when a court distributes marital property to divorcing parties, it necessarily includes both marital assets and liabilities) (citation......
-
Morrison v. Rubio
...court must afford the statutory considerations when making a property division." Innes, ¶ 15, 500 P.3d at 262 (quoting Malli, ¶ 16, 460 P.3d at 249). The statute contemplates a distribution that is equitable, "does not require an equal division of property." Malli, ¶ 16, 460 P.3d at 249. We......
-
Engebretsen v. Engebretsen
...500 P.3d at 262 ). This statute "does not require an equal division of property." Id. (quoting Malli v. Malli , 2020 WY 42, ¶ 16, 460 P.3d 245, 249 (Wyo. 2020) ). "[A] just and equitable division of property is just as likely not to be equal." Id. (quoting Long , 2018 WY 26, ¶ 22, 413 P.3d ......
-
In re D'Anzi
...2020)). The statute contemplates a distribution that is equitable, it "does not require an equal division of property." Malli, ¶ 16, 460 P.3d at 249. In Pond v. Pond, we explained: [Wife's] position requires an assumption as to the district court's ultimate intent when it employed the term ......