Metz v. Metz
| Decision Date | 13 January 2003 |
| Docket Number | No. 02-110.,02-110. |
| Citation | 2003 WY 3,61 P.3d 383 |
| Parties | Albert V. METZ, Jr., Appellant (Defendant), v. Kathryn K. METZ, Appellee (Plaintiff). |
| Court | Wyoming Supreme Court |
Frank R. Chapman of Beech Street Law Office, Casper, Wyoming, Representing Appellant.
Lea Kuvinka of Kuvinka & Kuvinka, P.C., Jackson, Wyoming, Representing Appellee.
Before HILL, C.J., and GOLDEN, LEHMAN, KITE, and VOIGT, JJ.
[¶ 1] Albert V. Metz, Jr. (husband) appeals from the property distribution portion of a divorce decree awarding his ex-wife, Kathryn K. Metz, now known as Kathryn K. Karst (wife), part of his past and future disability insurance benefits. He also claims the trial court erred in presiding over the divorce trial after hearing evidence concerning the parties' failed settlement mediation. We find no error and affirm.
[¶ 3] In October of 1999, after thirty-three years of marriage, the wife filed for a divorce from the husband. At the time the divorce was finalized in January of 2002, both the husband and the wife were in their late fifties. The husband was a neurosurgeon who retired from his practice in July 1999 due to a medical disability relating to his knee and cervical vertebrae. Except for working as a medical research technician while the husband finished medical school and several part-time jobs over the years, the wife primarily stayed home with the couple's two children during the marriage. She also managed the family finances throughout the marriage. At the time of the divorce, neither party was, nor did they expect in the future to be, employed full time. The husband estimated the value of the couple's assets at approximately $3,000,000, consisting of a residence in Casper; a vacation home in Teton County; various investment, retirement, and bank accounts; future disability insurance benefits; and numerous items of personal property.
[¶ 4] One of the main areas of contention in the divorce proceedings concerned the payments from a disability insurance policy which the husband began receiving after closing his medical practice. The husband applied for the policy in 1986, and the premiums were paid out of family funds. The husband began receiving payments after his retirement in 1999. Prior to his receipt of the first payment, the parties had separated. At the time of the divorce, the husband had received $189,000 from the policy and expected to receive an additional $6,500 per month until he reached the age of sixty five. None of the disability benefits received up to the time of the divorce had been shared with the wife.
[¶ 5] The parties attempted on two occasions to resolve their differences through mediation, first with a retired district judge acting as mediator and then, on October 13, 2001, with the parties' certified public account (who is also a licensed attorney) acting as mediator. Following the second mediation, the wife filed a motion to enforce the settlement agreement claiming the parties had reached a legally enforceable settlement agreement for which she paid valuable consideration and the husband reneged on the agreement. A hearing was held on the motion on January 4 and 7, 2002. After hearing testimony and the arguments of counsel, the trial court denied the motion to enforce the settlement agreement, finding there was not a mutual assent during the mediation sufficient to create a contract. The case proceeded to trial on January 14 through 16, 2002, and on January 23, 2002, the trial court entered findings of fact, conclusions of law, and a decree granting the divorce and dividing the property as evenly as possible between the parties. In addition to its other findings and conclusions, the trial court made the following award which the husband challenges on appeal:
2. [The wife] is awarded the sum of $2112.5[0] per month or one half of the monthly disability payments received by [the husband], whichever is greater, as a division of property to be paid by the [husband] each month so long as the [husband] continues to collect his disability benefits ...; and the sum of $75,000.00 to compensate the [wife] for past disability payments received by the [husband] during the separation and not shared with the [wife].
[¶ 6] The husband claims the trial court abused its discretion in awarding the wife a portion of the disability benefits and presiding over the divorce trial after hearing evidence of the failed settlement. The ultimate question in determining whether an abuse of discretion occurred is whether the trial court could have reasonably concluded as it did. Horn v. Welch, 2002 WY 138, 918, 54 P.3d 754, 918 (Wyo.2002). We will not disturb a property division in a divorce case, except on clear grounds, as the trial court is usually in a better position than the appellate court to judge the parties' needs and the merits of their positions. Paul v. Paul, 616 P.2d 707, 712 (Wyo.1980); Warren v. Warren, 361 P.2d 525, 526 (Wyo.1961).
[¶ 7] The husband claims the trial court abused its discretion when it included the benefits from the disability policy in the property distribution. He argues first that the disability benefits should not have been included because they were not property which was the product of the marital union acquired during the course of the marriage by the joint efforts of the parties as Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 20-2-114 (LexisNexis 2001) has been interpreted to require. France v. France, 902 P.2d 701, 704 (Wyo.1995). He further argues that the disability benefits were separate property not subject to division under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 20-1-201 (LexisNexis 2001).1
[¶ 8] Addressing the latter statute first, this court has repeatedly held that a married person's separately owned property, like jointly owned property, is subject to distribution in a divorce action. Mann v. Mann, 979 P.2d 497, 499 (Wyo.1999). Even assuming, therefore, that the husband properly characterizes the benefits from the disability insurance policy as separate property, they were subject to division by the trial court in the same manner as the parties' jointly owned property.
[¶ 9] We turn next to the question of whether the trial court properly included the benefits from the disability insurance policy as property subject to equitable distribution under § 20-2-114, which provides:
In granting a divorce, 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 upon the property for the benefit of either party and children. The court may decree to either party reasonable alimony out of the estate of the other having regard for the other's ability to pay and may order so much of the other's real estate or the rents and profits as is necessary be assigned and set out to either party for life, or may decree a specific sum be paid by either party.
The husband correctly asserts that, under this statute, the property subject to division consisted of property which was the product of the marital union and was acquired during the course of the marriage by the parties' joint efforts. France, 902 P.2d at 704. Applying this standard, we said in France that it was not an abuse of discretion to award the wife property she had received as a gift or by inheritance from her parents. Id. However, we do not find that holding to be particularly relevant to the facts of this case given that we are not concerned here with a gift or inheritance but are concerned with benefits from a disability policy paid for out of the marital estate during the marriage.
[¶ 10] In determining whether those benefits were properly included in the property to be divided, we look first to that portion of the benefits received by the husband before the divorce—benefits totaling $189,000, of which $75,000 was awarded to the wife. We hold the trial court did not abuse its discretion in making that award to the wife. Under the facts presented here, that portion of the disability payments from the insurance policy received by the husband prior to the divorce substituted for income he would have otherwise earned and was "the product of the marital union and was acquired during the course of the marriage by the joint efforts of the parties." Id. [¶ 11] We consider next whether disability payments which the insurance policy will provide to the husband until he turns sixty-five were properly included in the property division. In concluding that such payments should be included, the trial court said:
14. Due to the length of the marriage, the fact that ... the parties['] assets were accrued exclusively during the marriage, and the fact that both pa...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hanson v. Belveal
...discretion occurred, our core inquiry is the reasonableness of the district court's decision. Selvey, ¶ 15, 102 P.3d at 214 (citing Metz v. Metz, 2003 WY 3, ¶ 6, 61 P.3d 383, 385 (Wyo.2003)). We view the evidence in the light most favorable to the district court's determination, affording t......
-
Williams v. Williams
...as the trial court is usually in a better position than the appellate court to judge the parties' respective merits and needs. Metz v. Metz, 2003 WY 3, ¶ 6, 61 P.3d 383, ¶ 6 (Wyo.2003). The trial court is also in the best position to assess the witnesses' credibility and weigh their testimo......
-
Leners v. State
...sufficient knowledge or examination. Bias is a leaning of the mind or an inclination toward one person over another." Id. (quoting Metz v. Metz, 2003 WY 3, ¶ 20, 61 P.3d 383, (Wyo. 2003) (quoting Cline v. Sawyer, 600 P.2d 725, 729 (Wyo. 1979))). "[T]he party alleging a claim of bias or prej......
-
Begley v. Begley
...the parties’ needs and the merits of their positions.’ " Bagley v. Bagley, 2013 WY 126, ¶ 7, 311 P.3d 141, 143 (Wyo. 2013) (quoting Metz v. Metz, 2003 WY 3, ¶ 6, 61 P.3d 383, 385 (Wyo. 2003) ). See also , Cross v. Cross, 586 P.2d 547, 549 (Wyo. 1978) ("This court steadfastly and repeatedly ......
-
§ 8.03 Disability Benefits
...App. 425, 949 P.2d 404 (Wash. App. 1998). West Virginia: Conrad v. Conrad, 216 W.Va. 696, 612 S.E.2d 772 (2005). Wyoming: Metz v. Metz, 61 P.3d 383 (Wyo. 2003). [308] Marriage of Swanson, 583 N.W.2d 15 (Minn. App. 1998).[309] See § 7.02[2] supra.[310] Id.[311] It is unclear whether Wisconsi......