Maynard v. Maynard, 4928
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming |
| Citation | 585 P.2d 1201 |
| Docket Number | No. 4928,4928 |
| Parties | Herbert Lee MAYNARD, Appellant (Defendant below), v. Arline Clifton MAYNARD, Appellee (Plaintiff below). |
| Decision Date | 02 November 1978 |
M. Scott McColloch, Greybull, for appellant.
Robert A. Gish, Basin, for appellee.
Before GUTHRIE, C. J., and McCLINTOCK, RAPER, THOMAS and ROSE, JJ.
Appellant here seeks to have this court overturn the property settlement made by the trial court in the divorce suit in which he was defendant, and to award him an equitable share in the Lilac Motel, which was part of the marriage property, or in the alternative to grant a new trial.
Appellant bases his attack upon two alleged errors:
1. That certain testimony was improperly admitted relating to the motel's future competitive position, which was speculative and hearsay.
2. That the court abused its discretion in disposing of the property, resulting in an inequitable and unjust division.
This case was not reported so there is no transcript of the proceedings available. Appellant, in reliance upon Rule 75(c), W.R.C.P., originally filed in this court a so-called Statement of Proceedings wherein he summarized or set out his version of the testimony of several witnesses. This was not settled or approved by the trial judge. Upon objection, this court remanded the matter to the district court with instructions to settle and approve the record.
After such remand, appellant filed a Motion for Settlement of Record; and appellee, in opposition thereto, filed an affidavit setting out that there had been no objection to any question or answer with regard to the question whether there was anything which she had known or heard which would affect the motel's competitive position. Appellant additionally apparently submitted to the court an instrument entitled "Statement of Proceedings and Stipulation of Facts by Trial Attorneys" which he attached to his brief but it was apparently never filed. After hearing, the court entered its order, finding as follows:
which was repeated in substance in the decretal part of said order. Thus, the record as settled and approved does not include any showing of an objection to this testimony.
Appellant's claim of error in the admission of evidence was directed at the testimony of appellee herein, Arline Clifton Maynard. This we cannot reach because of the condition of the record. The court is confined to the record for its...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Feaster v. Feaster, 85-261
...recall the true facts from a proceeding, then the statement has not, and cannot, be approved or settled. In Maynard v. Maynard, Wyo., 585 P.2d 1201, 1202 (1978), we "Because the trial court did not approve or settle this portion of the statement as it refers to the evidence question, it is ......
-
Jacobs v. Jacobs, s. 94-116
...recall the true facts from a proceeding, then the statement has not, and cannot, be approved or settled. In Maynard v. Maynard, Wyo., 585 P.2d 1201, 1202 (1978), we Because the trial court did not approve or settle this portion of the statement as it refers to the evidence question, it is t......
-
Bolding v. Kindel Concrete, LLC, S–14–0045.
...the statement has not, and cannot, be approved or settled.” Feaster v. Feaster, 721 P.2d 1095, 1097 (Wyo.1986). In Maynard v. Maynard, 585 P.2d 1201, 1202 (Wyo.1978), we stated:Because the trial court did not approve or settle this portion of the statement as it refers to the evidence quest......
-
Bolding v. Kindel Concrete, LLC, S–14–0045.
...the statement has not, and cannot, be approved or settled.” Feaster v. Feaster, 721 P.2d 1095, 1097 (Wyo.1986). In Maynard v. Maynard, 585 P.2d 1201, 1202 (Wyo.1978), we stated: Because the trial court did not approve or settle this portion of the statement as it refers to the evidence ques......