Case Title: SWEAT v. SWEAT

Citation: 

Docket Number: 02-168

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 2003-07-07T00:00:00Z

Document:
SWEAT v. SWEAT2003 WY 8272 P.3d 276Case Number: 02-168Decided: 07/07/2003
APRIL 
TERM, A.D. 2003

 

                                                                                                            

 

SHARON 
P. SWEAT,

 

Appellant(Plaintiff),

 

v.

 

DARYL 
J. SWEAT,

 

Appellee(Defendant).

 

 

Appeal 
from the District Court of Sweetwater County

The 
Honorable Jere Ryckman, Judge

 

Representing 
Appellant:

Stan 
Decker Cannon of Greenhalgh, Beckwith, Lemich & Stith, Rock Springs, 
Wyoming  

 

Representing 
Appellee:

            
Paul Thomas Glause, Rock Springs, Wyoming  

 

 

Before 
HILL, C.J., and GOLDEN, LEHMAN, KITE, and VOIGT, JJ.

 

 

 

            
KITE, Justice.

 

[¶1]      Sharon P. Sweat 
(wife) appeals from the property distribution portion of a divorce decree 
granting her a divorce from Daryl J. Sweat (husband).  She claims the trial court abused its 
discretion in, first, finding that a particular bank account was not part of the 
marital estate and awarding it to the husband and, second, dividing the property 
generally in an inequitable manner.  
We find no abuse of discretion and affirm.  

 

 

ISSUES

 

[¶2]      The wife presents 
the following issues:

 

1.  Whether 
the District Court abused its discretion by not finding that a joint marital 
account established for the benefit of both parties during the marriage was a 
marital asset to which [the wife] had legal and equitable 
rights.

 

2.  Whether the court's award of the marital 
estate, which set over more than $2.4 million to the [husband], but only 
$112,000.00, plus a car and two trailers, to the [wife] shocks the conscience of 
the court and appears to be so unfair and inequitable as to be an abuse of 
discretion.

 

The 
husband phrases the issue as:

 

1.  Whether 
the Trial Court abused its discretion when it divided the parties' marital 
property?

 

 

FACTS

 

[¶3]      The husband and 
the wife married on November 19, 1993.  
No children were born to the parties although the wife came into the 
marriage with four children of her own.  
At the time of the marriage, the husband owned Rock Springs Ford, 
Inc.  He also had numerous other 
assets, including a life insurance policy, a 401(k) account, an IRA, an annuity, 
stocks, several parcels of real estate, and an interest in a family trust.  He sold the primary corporate assets of 
Rock Springs Ford in October of 2000 for $1,292,500.  The proceeds realized from the sale, 
approximately $500,000, were deposited into a joint savings account referred to 
as the "Zurich account." 

 

[¶4]      On March 27, 
2001, the wife filed for a divorce.  
The only contested issue in the divorce proceedings was the property 
distribution.  She claimed, among 
other things, that she was entitled to twenty-five percent of the amount 
realized from the sale of the Rock Springs Ford assets or, in the alternative, 
one-half of the amount held in the Zurich account.  She also claimed she was entitled to a 
portion of much of the property the husband held prior to the marriage. 

 

[¶5]      After a day and a 
half long trial and submission of written closing arguments, the trial court 
generally awarded property the husband acquired before the marriage to him, 
including Rock Springs Ford, the 401(k) account, a life insurance policy, an 
IRA, an annuity, stocks, and the real estate less the wife's share of the equity 
in parcels purchased during the marriage.  
The trial court awarded to the wife two mobile homes, a vehicle purchased 
by the parties during the marriage, and her share of the equity in the real 
estate purchased during the marriage.  
To equalize the division of the property, the trial court also ordered 
the husband to pay the wife $112,000.

 

 

STANDARD 
OF REVIEW

 

[¶6]      The division of 
marital property is within the trial court's sound discretion, and we will not 
disturb that division absent an abuse of discretion.  Carlton v. Carlton, 997 P.2d 1028, 1032 (Wyo. 2000).  A just and 
equitable distribution is as likely as not to be unequal.  Id.  We evaluate whether the trial court's 
property division is, in fact, equitable from the perspective of the overall 
distribution of marital assets and liabilities rather than from a narrow focus 
on the effects of any particular disposition.  Id.  From that perspective, we afford the 
trial court considerable discretion to form a distributive scheme appropriate to 
the peculiar circumstances of each individual case, and we will not disturb such 
a scheme absent a showing that the trial court clearly abused its 
discretion.  Id.  The division of property in a divorce 
case should not be disturbed except on clear grounds 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 
testimony.  Raymond v. 
Raymond, 956 P.2d 329, 332 (Wyo. 1998).  We, therefore, give considerable 
deference to its findings.  
Id.  The ultimate 
question in determining whether an abuse of discretion occurred is whether the 
trial court could reasonably conclude as it did.  Metz, 2003 WY 3, ¶6.  In answering that question, we consider 
only the evidence of the successful party, ignore the evidence of the 
unsuccessful party, and grant the successful party every favorable inference 
that can be drawn from the record.  
Holland v. Holland, 2001 WY 113, ¶8, 35 P.3d 409, ¶8 (Wyo. 2001). 

 

 

DISCUSSION

 

[¶7]      Pointing 
specifically to the Zurich account, the wife contends the trial court abused its 
discretion in not treating it as a marital asset and in awarding it to the 
husband.  She argues the account was 
opened as a joint account in both of their names; she was expressly identified 
as a "joint tenant" on the application; the check deposited into the account was 
made out to her and the husband; and, therefore, she had a legal right to 
one-half of the funds in the account.  
Looking at the property division as a whole, the wife claims the trial 
court's division of the property was so unfair and inequitable as to be 
unconscionable. She claims the husband ended up with property worth more than 
$2.4 million while she was left with "only $112,000.00, plus a car and two 
trailers." 

 

[¶8]      The husband 
contends the Zurich account was properly awarded to him because it derived from 
the sale of Rock Springs Ford assets, which he owned prior to the marriage.  He also asserts it is not proper to look 
at only the Zurich account.  He 
claims this Court must consider all the assets and liabilities in 
reviewing the appropriateness of the trial court's property distribution.  He argues the overall distribution was 
equitable because the assets awarded to him were his prior to the marriage and 
either did not appreciate significantly during the marriage or appreciated for 
reasons independent of any efforts by the parties.  He also argues the wife was fairly 
compensated for any entitlement she might have had to a share in those assets by 
the $120,000 in checks she wrote on the Rock Springs Ford account after the 
parties separated, together with the $112,000 the trial court ordered him to pay 
to her.  

 

[¶9]      From the record 
before us, we are able to piece together the following facts with respect to the 
Zurich account.  When the husband 
sold the primary corporate assets of Rock Springs Ford in October of 2000, the 
parties opened a joint accountthe Zurich accountunder both of their signatures 
and deposited the $500,000 realized from the sale into the account.  In January of 2001, the parties 
separated, and the wife, considering the marriage over, decided to move back to 
Ohio where her father lived.  
Believing the funds in the Zurich account approximated her share of the 
marital estate, the wife withdrew $500,000 from the account.  The husband persuaded her not to leave, 
and she deposited the funds back into the Zurich account.  The husband testified at trial that the 
$500,000, like the other assets retained by Rock Springs Ford, belonged to Rock 
Springs Ford and was deposited in the joint account by mistake.  He testified that, in March of 2001, 
about the time the parties decided to divorce, he wrote a $500,000 check on the 
Zurich account which he deposited back into an account held by Rock Springs 
Ford.  He further testified $240,000 
of the amount was subsequently used to pay the tax liability arising from the 
sale of Rock Springs Ford corporate assets.  When the wife subsequently attempted to 
write a check for $150,000 on the account, she learned the account had 
insufficient funds in it to cover the check. 

 

[¶10]   Looking at the trial court's award 
of the Zurich account to the husband in the context of the property division as 
a whole, we hold there was no abuse of discretion.  The record reflects the husband held the 
assets awarded to him prior to the marriage, including Rock Springs Ford, the 
401(k) account, the annuity, a life insurance policy, stocks, and an IRA.  The trial court found Rock Springs Ford 
did not significantly appreciate in value during the marriage; rather, it 
"value[d] the business and proceeds from the business in 2001, after the payment 
of debts and capital gains taxes, very close to its value in 1993."  Although other of the premarital assets, 
such as the life insurance policy, stocks, and the retirement plan, did 
appreciate in value during the marriage, the wife received the rough equivalent 
of her share of the appreciation in the court's award of $112,000 and checks 
totaling $120,000 which she wrote on the Rock Springs Ford account after the 
parties separated.  The wife also 
was awarded two mobile homes, a vehicle, and her share of the equity in the real 
estate purchased during the marriage.

  

[¶11]   When marital property is divided, 
the statute requires the court to consider the length of the parties' marriage, 
their respective contributions to the marriage, the condition in which they will 
be left by the divorce, and the party through whom the property was 
acquired.  Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 
20-2-114 (LexisNexis 2003).  In 
reviewing the trial court's decision, we must consider only the evidence in 
favor of the husband as the successful party, ignore the evidence presented by 
the wife, and grant the husband every favorable inference that can be drawn from 
the record.  Holland, 2001 WY 
113, ¶8.  Given those parameters, we 
hold the trial court could reasonably conclude as it did and did not abuse its 
discretion under these particular facts.  

 

[¶12]   Affirmed.