Paul v. Paul
| Decision Date | 29 July 1980 |
| Docket Number | 5185,Nos. 5184,s. 5184 |
| Citation | 616 P.2d 707 |
| Parties | Norina D. PAUL, Appellant (Plaintiff below), v. Theodore R. PAUL, Appellee (Defendant below). Theodore R. PAUL, Appellant (Defendant below), v. Norina D. PAUL, Appellee (Plaintiff below). |
| Court | Wyoming Supreme Court |
Kenneth S. Cohen, Jackson, for Norina D. Paul.
R. I. Leedy, of Hettinger & Leedy, Riverton, for Theodore R. Paul.
Before RAPER, C. J., and McCLINTOCK, THOMAS, ROSE and ROONEY, JJ.
These two cases involve a former wife's appeal from a property settlement in a divorce and the former husband's cross-appeal.
Mrs. Paul presents five issues in her appeal:
1. The trial judge erred in estimating the net worth of the marital estate and the husband's earning capacity, and this factual error prejudiced the property division;
2. The trial court abused its discretion in determining the property division;
3. The wife was prejudiced by the failure of the trial court to enforce her discovery rights;
4. The husband was at fault and the wife was prejudiced by the refusal of the trial court to allow evidence of the husband's fault; and
5. The judgment that the wife be responsible for a credit-card debt was improper on procedural grounds.
In his cross-appeal, Mr. Paul raises three issues:
1. The award of $10,000.00 to the wife for attorneys' fees is improper because the fees were not proved;
2. The trial court lacked jurisdiction to award some household furnishings which were owned by a corporation; and
3. The trial court acted arbitrarily in deeming that the husband or the corporation, of which he was a major shareholder, had waived right to the aforementioned furnishings.
We will affirm.
The record shows that the court took the following factors into consideration in settling the property issue in this case:
Age of the parties; the number and age of the children of both parties by prior marriages and the child born as the issue of this marriage; the responsibility of each of the parties to all children; and the welfare of all of them. The age and station in life of each party was considered. The court took note of the probability of marriage of each of the parties. The court considered the length of the marriage and the separation, noting the parties had been separated for three years and divorce proceedings had been pending for some five years. The trial judge observed that the marriage had been stormy from the beginning. He considered the assets and liabilities brought into the marriage by both parties and the assets and liabilities of each party as they leave the marriage the husband's ability to pay and earn the wife's ability to earn the financial requirements of both parties and the social status of each. The court also considered the health of each of the parties other pending divorce actions and the attorney-fee obligation of the parties. Generally speaking, the court took careful and considerable
note of all of the elements required by law in matters of this nature.
The wife was 28 and the husband 46 when they married the second marriage for her and the third for him. They were 44 and 61 respectively when divorced, but they had been separated for three years prior to the divorce in fact, a divorce petition had been filed in the East for some five years before the divorce and was pending when the court heard this case.
After trial, the court found the husband to have a net worth of $1,400,000.00 and an earning capacity of $75,000.00 per year. The judge's decision letter indicates that the husband also receives $24,000.00 a year from some of his income-producing property. In settling the property, the court took into account the probable retirement age of the defendant as being 65 with respect to his future expected earning capacity, as well as the wife's age, needs, and the probability that she will remarry.
According to the judge's decision letter, the wife brought $21,400.00 into the marriage, while the husband, at the time of the marriage, was worth $2,600,000.00, which figure included the husband's family home which he contributed to the marriage. These figures show, therefore, that during the fifteen or sixteen years from marriage to divorce, the net worth of the husband was depleted by some $1,200,000.00.
In addition to settling the property dispute and the divorce issues, the judgment provided for custody of the parties' only child in the wife and for child support of $300.00 a month until the child reaches majority or becomes otherwise emancipated. The husband is also ordered to pay for the college expenses at a college of the child's choice. The corpus of a trust capable of producing $20,000.00 per year to the wife for 34.2 years was also set over to the child of the parties when its obligation to Mrs. Paul had been discharged.
The wife alleges that the trial court erred in estimating the husband's net worth and annual earning capacity and that this error prejudiced the property division. The wife lists a number of assets owned by the husband, together with the respective value of each item. According to Mrs. Paul's arithmetic, Mr. Paul is worth more than $2,000,000.00 instead of the $1,400,000.00 found by the court or the $1,040,000.00 claimed by the husband. However, applying our appellate rules for resolving conflicts in the evidence, we do not find the wife's claim of factual error by the trial court meritorious. There is sufficient evidence of record to support the trial court's conclusion in this regard.
For wife Household furnishings and items of personal property :
The judgment contemplates that the wife is to have as her sole and separate property, items from their Pittsburgh residence, most of which are fine household furnishings, silver, jewelry, china and other articles of value. The list of these objects, single-spaced, consumes three legal-size pages of paper. The court did not set a value upon these various household furnishings and other items of personalty, but we observe and take judicial notice of the fact that the articles listed are of good quality and high value.
Jewelry :
There is evidence in the case that Mrs. Paul's Indian jewelry has a value of eighty to ninety thousand dollars. She retains this property, and she also retains a five-carat engagement ring.
Cars, horses and snowmobiles :
Mrs. Paul retains a truck, an expensive automobile, three snowmobiles and some horses. There is no monetary value set for these items.
For husband :
(a) Family home : The family home, valued at between $280,000.00 and $415,000.00 (b) Stocks and bonds : The principal assets set over to the husband were stocks in various corporations. These assets, by and large, make up the difference between the family-home value and the net-worth figure previously indicated, i. e., $1,400,000.00.
was set over to the husband. The trial court apparently averaged these two figures and, after making allowance for taxes and assessments due, valued the home at $336,000.00.
Mrs. Paul was ordered to discharge a credit-card obligation in the sum of $2,300.00, which was incurred by reason of her stealing and using the defendant's credit card. She was also left to pay some of her attorneys' fees incurred in this and other divorce suits filed in other states. How much of Mrs. Paul's attorneys' fees in other states the plaintiff or defendant will have to pay is not shown by the record. The court could not, of course, have ascertained this.
(1) The defendant husband was ordered to finance a trust fund in a way which would return to Mrs. Paul $20,000.00 per year, commencing one year from the judgment and continuing for 34.2 years or life, whichever was the shorter period of time, with the corpus to go to the child of the parties when the fund's obligations to Mrs. Paul had been discharged. This award returns to Mrs. Paul $1,666.66 per month throughout her life expectancy. It imposes upon the husband a total obligation of approximately $680,000.00 from trust fund payments (assuming a figure of $200,000.00 is sufficient to fund the trust) and is somewhat more than one-half the amount that Mrs. Paul testified would be sufficient for her needs.
(2) Mr. Paul was further ordered to pay to the plaintiff the sum of $2,000.00 per month for one year, or $24,000.00.
(3) The defendant was ordered to pay $10,000.00 for the plaintiff's Wyoming attorney's fees.
(4) Mr. Paul was ordered to pay $300.00 per month for the support of the minor child until majority or emancipation. Assuming she goes to college at age 18 (when approximately $5,000.00 per year becomes the obligation of the husband), the husband must pay $3,600.00 per year for three years, or $10,800.00.
(5) The husband was ordered to pay for the daughter's college education; even though there is no evidence as to the cost of this obligation to the defendant, we assume it to be a minimum of $20,000.00.
The total financial obligation of the husband to the wife and child is:
1. $680,000.00 to the wife over a period of 34.2 years;
2. $24,000.00 to the wife over a period of one year;
3. $10,000.00 for the wife's Wyoming attorney's fees.
making a total of $744,800.00 ($750,000.00, rounded). 1
I. Was the property division just and equitable'?
In evaluating the wife's claim that the property division was not just and equitable and was an abuse of the trial court's discretion, we must look to both our statutory and case law.
Section 20-2-114, W.S.1977, provides:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Muller v. Muller
...Beckle v. Beckle, 452 P.2d 205 (Wyo.1969); Storm v. Storm, 470 P.2d 367 (Wyo.1970); Piper v. Piper, 487 P.2d 1062 (Wyo.1971); Paul v. Paul, 616 P.2d 707 (Wyo.1980); Kennedy v. Kennedy, 761 P.2d 995 (Wyo.1988); Sellers v. Sellers, 775 P.2d 1029 (Wyo.1989); Williams v. Williams, 817 P.2d 884 ......
-
Broadhead v. Broadhead
...itself as a court of first instance to divide property in divorce cases, we rely on the learned discretion of the trial court. Paul v. Paul, supra, 616 P.2d 707; Merritt v. Merritt, Wyo., 586 P.2d 550 " ' "Inasmuch as a trial court's judgment cannot be disturbed except on clear grounds, we ......
-
UNC Teton Exploration Drilling, Inc. v. Peyton
...698 P.2d 1141, reh'g denied 703 P.2d 338, amended 707 P.2d 1389 (Wyo.1985); Klatt v. Klatt, 654 P.2d 733 (Wyo.1982); Paul v. Paul, 616 P.2d 707 (Wyo.1980); and Prentice v. Prentice, 568 P.2d 883 (Wyo.1977) (McClintock, J., dissenting).The twelve fee litigation cases include four with appell......
-
Moore v. Moore, 89-261
...and fast rules govern property division. Dennis v. Dennis, 675 P.2d 265 (Wyo.1984); Klatt v. Klatt, 654 P.2d 733 (Wyo.1982); Paul v. Paul, 616 P.2d 707 (Wyo.1980). This aspect of the dissolution of a marriage is also vested in the discretion of the trial court and, to be just and equitable,......