Neuman v. Neuman, 91-99
| Decision Date | 30 November 1992 |
| Docket Number | No. 91-99,91-99 |
| Parties | Charles Richard NEUMAN, a/k/a Dick Neuman, Appellant (Plaintiff), v. Gretchen Ann NEUMAN, Appellee (Defendant). |
| Court | Wyoming Supreme Court |
David E. Erickson, Brown Erickson & Hiser, Rawlins, for appellant.
Richard G. Miller, Casper, for appellee.
Before MACY, C.J., and THOMAS, CARDINE, URBIGKIT * and GOLDEN, JJ.
All of the questions raised in this appeal relate to the exercise of discretion by the trial court in effecting a division of marital property in a divorce action. The primary issue concerns the method adopted for determining the value of stock in a closely-held family corporation. Other allegations of error concern a variance between the decree entered by the trial court and the parties' stipulations; the failure of the trial court to consider tax liabilities and early withdrawal penalties in valuing retirement accounts; and the failure of the trial court to take into account a right of contribution from cotenants in determining the value of the wife's interest in real property held by her in joint tenancy with others. We hold there was no abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court with respect to any valuations. We do modify the decree of divorce to increase the value of the residence awarded to the wife to its stipulated value and, after that adjustment, we further modify the decree by abolishing periodic payments obviously designed by the trial court to effect an equal distribution. As modified, we affirm the decree of divorce entered by the trial court.
Charles Richard Neuman (the husband) raises the following issues in expressing his dissatisfaction with the property division made by the district court:
I. Did the trial court abuse its discretion by making findings of fact and conclusions of law at variance with the parties' stipulations?
II. Did the trial court abuse its discretion under the particular facts and circumstances of this case by failing to consider tax liabilities and early withdrawal penalties when determining the value of the parties' individual retirement accounts?
III. Did the trial court abuse its discretion by failing to consider appellee's right to contribution from her cotenants when determining the value of her interests in a joint tenancy?
IV. Did the trial court properly determine the value of appellant's closely held stock?
Gretchen Ann Neuman (the wife) offers this statement of the issues in arguing to sustain the property division made by the trial court:
1. Was the trial court's division of property when viewed on an overall basis an abuse of discretion?
2. Was the trial court's valuation of appellee's joint tenancy an abuse of discretion?
3. Did the trial court err as a matter of law and abuse its discretion when it accepted appellee's expert's valuation of appellant's stock?
The husband, by his reply brief, summarizes the case in this way:
V. Is the trial court's property settlement fair and equitable when judged on an overall basis under the particular facts and circumstances of this case?
The Neumans were married on June 7, 1980, in Saratoga. By December of 1989, irreconcilable differences had arisen between them and, following a year of separation, the husband filed for a divorce on May 24, 1990. The wife filed an answer and a counterclaim in which she sought a decree of divorce, custody of their daughter, child support, and an equitable division of their properties. The trial was held on January 4, 1991, with the only matter in dispute before the court being the value, and the appropriate division, of the parties' property. Other issues including custody of their daughter, child support, medical expenses, and visitation of the daughter generally were not in dispute because they had been resolved by stipulations.
The husband and wife each brought substantial assets into the marriage. At that time, the husband owned a house in Rawlins, which was worth approximately $57,000, and approximately seventeen shares of Phelps-Dodge stock, a gift from his father in 1979. The wife owned an 85% interest in a cabin and lot near Moran Junction; a Merrill Lynch cash money market account; and interests in two real estate investment companies known as JMB Properties. The wife's property had been acquired with proceeds that she received from a personal injury settlement in 1974.
Before they were married, the husband and wife purchased three acres of land in the Aspen Highlands Development near Elk Mountain. During the time they were married, the Neumans purchased an additional home with the proceeds of the sale of the home owned by the husband prior to the marriage, and they acquired certificates of deposit (CDs), individual retirement accounts (IRAs), life insurance, a vehicle, household furnishings, and a significant amount of cash. The husband worked in his family's trucking business, as service manager, during the ten years of the marriage. The wife was employed as a teacher at Carbon County Child Development Center for the first two years of the marriage but she was not employed after their daughter was born.
The Neumans had an outstanding mortgage on their home of $14,000 but, otherwise, they were free of debt. The husband held eighty-four shares of stock in Neuman Transit Company, Inc. (Neuman Transit), a closely-held corporation owned entirely by the Neuman family. He received sixty of those shares as gifts from his father in 1981, 1982, and 1983, and the other twenty-four shares were distributed to him in settlement of his grandmother's estate in 1988. The trial court found that the value of the husband's shares in Neuman Transit was $188,943.
The decree of divorce in this case was filed on March 7, 1991. The district court found a just and equitable division of the property to be as follows:
ASSETS MR. NEUMAN MRS. NEUMAN
Family home in Rawlins $ 76,000.00
3 acres on Elk Mountain $ 9,000.00
Household furnishings 8,790.00
1984 Wagoneer 4,425.00
IRAs 28,600.00 2,597.21
Hungry 5 4,463.60
JMB 5,270.00
Cash value of life insurance 11,608.44
Ginnie Mae account 5,400.00
Savings 1,900.00
CDs 14,520.58
Neuman Transit stock 188,943.00
Phelps"Dodge stock 1,000.00
Merrill Lynch 44,430.00
3 horses 2,200.00
Loan to Kevin 2,000.00
Teton County home 61,666.00
----------- -----------
$247,815.04 $224,998.79
LIABILITIES MR. NEUMAN MRS. NEUMAN
Appraisals for trial 620.00 620.00
Mortgage on family home 14,000.00
----------- -----------
$233,195.04 $224,378.79
----------
As an additional settlement of their property, the husband was ordered to pay the wife the sum of $367.34 per month for twenty-four months. That amount comes within pennies of the disparity between the value of the property according to the decree. Each party was to bear their own attorney fees and costs.
The major issue in this case with respect to the property division is over the valuation of the stock in Neuman Transit. In addressing the husband's claim that the property division was not just and equitable and, therefore, must be held to be an abuse of the trial court's discretion, we look both to the statute and prior cases. The controlling statute in this case, Wyo.Stat. § 20-2-114 (1987), provides, in pertinent part:
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.
In prior cases, we have held repeatedly that the division of marital property is within the discretion of the trial court and, in the absence of a manifest abuse of that discretion, we will not disturb the result. Mair v. Mair, 823 P.2d 538 (Wyo.1992)- (citing Williams v. Williams, 817 P.2d 884 (Wyo.1991), and Blanchard v. Blanchard, 770 P.2d 227 (Wyo.1989)). An abuse of discretion is to be found in a result that shocks the conscience of the court and appears so unfair and inequitable that reasonable persons could not abide it. Grosskopf v. Grosskopf, 677 P.2d 814 (Wyo.1984) (). In evaluating the question of whether a property division by the trial court is, in fact, just and equitable, we must analyze the situation from the perspective of the overall distribution of the marital assets and liabilities, rather than focusing narrowly on the effects of disposition of any one particular asset. Overcast v. Overcast, 780 P.2d 1371 (Wyo.1989) (citing Klatt v. Klatt, 654 P.2d 733 (Wyo.1982), and Paul )). We also apply the usual rule that, on appeal, we view the evidence favorably to the successful party in the trial court, ignoring the evidence of the unsuccessful party, and affording to the successful party every reasonable inference that can be drawn from the evidence in the record. Kennedy v. Kennedy, 761 P.2d 995 (Wyo.1988) (citing Grosskopf ).
The major dispute in this case is over the method adopted by the trial court for valuing stock in Neuman Transit. Each of the parties...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Endres v. Endres
...of Hall, 103 Wash.2d 236, 692 P.2d 175, 179-80 (1984); Spheeris v. Spheeris, 37 Wis.2d 497, 155 N.W.2d 130, 135 (1967); Neuman v. Neuman, 842 P.2d 575, 581 (Wyo.1992). See also 2 Arnold H. Rutkin et al., Valuation & Distribution of Marital Property § 23.05(2)(b) (1995).2 Appellant's brief i......
-
Wallop v. Wallop
...dispositions on a case-by-case basis using the best possible valuation method appropriate for that particular case. Neuman v. Neuman, 842 P.2d 575, 582 (Wyo.1992). [¶ 6] The district court addressed the Canyon Ranch in its Judgment and Decree of Divorce, in applicable part, as 1. The Canyon......
-
Brown v. Arp and Hammond Hardware Co.
...valuation of closely-held stock will often be fact-dependent, requiring discretionary weighing by the district court. Neuman v. Neuman, 842 P.2d 575, 582 (Wyo.1992). However, we decline to defer to the district court's approach in this case because we conclude that the availability of a min......
-
Herrick v. Jackson Hole Airport Bd.
...State of Wyo. , 2003 WY 114, ¶ 46, 76 P.3d 342, 359 (Wyo. 2003) (governmental licenses, franchises, and customer lists); Neuman v. Neuman , 842 P.2d 575, 581 (Wyo. 1992) (business goodwill for marital property valuation); Ritter v. Farrow , 388 Wis. 2d 421, 933 N.W.2d 167, 174–75 (WI App. 2......