Case Title: Hedrick v. Hedrick

Citation: 

Docket Number: 95-89

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 1995-09-21T00:00:00Z

Document:
Hedrick v. Hedrick1995 WY 163902 P.2d 723Case Number: 95-89Decided: 09/21/1995Supreme Court of Wyoming
Danny 
William HEDRICK,

 Appellant 
(Defendant),

v.

Vera 
Sue HEDRICK, 

Appellee 
(Plaintiff).

Peter 
G. Arnold of Riske & Arnold, Cheyenne, for appellant.

Linda 
Steiner Lewis of Rogers, Blythe and Lewis, Cheyenne, for 
appellee.

Before 
GOLDEN, C.J., and THOMAS, MACY, TAYLOR and LEHMAN, JJ.

LEHMAN, 
Justice.

[¶1]      Dan Hedrick 
(husband) appeals from the disposition of marital property by the district 
court. Husband claims that either the court abused its discretion or that it 
committed a technical error which this court should correct when it divided the 
equity in the parties' home.

[¶2]  We affirm.

[¶3]      Husband presents 
two issues for review:

1. 
Whether the trial court abused its discretion in the division of the parties' 
equity in their home.

2. 
Whether the trial court made a technical error which does not necessarily amount 
to an abuse of discretion but which should be corrected by the Supreme 
Court.

Appellee 
Vera Sue Hedrick (wife) responds with:

A. 
Did the district court abuse its discretion, or make a simple technical error, 
in its distribution of property to the parties? 

B. 
Was there reasonable cause for the defendant/appellant to file an appeal in this 
case, and if not, should costs and fees be awarded to the plaintiff/appellee 
pursuant to Rule 10.05 of the Wyoming Rules of Appellate Procedure?

DISCUSSION

[¶4]      Husband contests 
the division of the equity in the parties' home, which was purchased from wife's 
parents during the marriage. At the time of the divorce the home had a value of 
$71,000. The trial court awarded husband $12,500 in the home's equity. Husband 
claims it was an abuse of discretion for the court to award him so little of the 
equity. Wife, on the other hand, counters that there was no abuse of discretion 
because the trial court took into consideration that $46,500 of the purchase 
price of the home ($25,000 in cash and $21,500 discount on the house) was an 
advance on her inheritance from her parents.1

[¶5]      The division of 
marital property is, of course, within the sound discretion of the trial court 
and will be disturbed on appeal only if an abuse of that discretion is found. 
France v. France, 902 P.2d 701, 703 (Wyo. 1995) (quoting Lund v. Lund, 849 P.2d 731, 738-39 (Wyo. 1993)). An abuse of discretion occurs when the property 
disposition shocks the conscience of this court and appears so unfair and 
inequitable that reasonable people could not abide by it. Id. In our review, we 
ignore appellant's evidence and view the evidence in the light most favorable to 
the appellee giving to appellee every reasonable inference which can be drawn 
from the record. Id.

[¶6]      We find no abuse 
of discretion in the disposition of the equity in the marital home. Wife 
asserted at trial that $46,500 was a gift from her parents. It is apparent that 
the district court accepted wife's testimony, for it divided the property 
exactly as she had requested at trial. The trial court is instructed, when 
making its disposition of marital property, to consider the party through whom 
the property was acquired. W.S. 20-2-114 (1994). This court has previously held 
that it was not an abuse of discretion when a party is awarded property he or 
she brought into the marriage or inherited during the course of it. See France; 
Paul v. Paul, 616 P.2d 707 (Wyo. 1980); Warren v. Warren, 361 P.2d 525 (Wyo. 
1961). Likewise, there was no abuse of discretion here.

[¶7]      Husband also 
argues that if the disposition of the property was not an abuse of discretion, 
it was, at the least, a technical error which this court should correct on its 
own. We disagree. This court has, in the past, modified a trial court's property 
disposition where there was clearly a mathematical error in the calculation of 
the property's value. See Neuman v. Neuman, 842 P.2d 575, 583 (Wyo. 1992). In 
this case, however, there is no claimed error in the valuation of the home or in 
the amount of the gift. The dispute is simply over whether the trial court 
should have treated the gift as a joint one to husband and wife or one to wife 
alone. While the record is somewhat confusing in this regard, there does appear 
to be evidence to support either result. The trial court chose to believe that 
it was a gift to wife. We find no abuse of discretion in that decision and, 
therefore, decline to modify the trial court's decision in any way.

[¶8]      Finally, wife 
claims that there was no reasonable cause for husband to prosecute this appeal 
and asks for an award of costs and fees pursuant to W.R.A.P. 10.05. Sanctions 
under Rule 10.05 are not available where the appeal challenges a discretionary 
ruling of the district court. Muldoon v. Schatzman, 902 P.2d 218, 219 (Wyo. 
1995); Mulkey-Yelverton v. Blevins, 884 P.2d 41, 44 (Wyo. 1994); James S. 
Jackson Co., Inc. v. Meyer, 677 P.2d 835, 839 (Wyo. 1984). Accordingly, wife's 
motion is denied. 

CONCLUSION

[¶9]  There being no abuse of discretion by 
the trial court in its disposition of the marital property, the decision is 
affirmed.

Footnotes

1 
In 1985 the house was worth $60,000. Wife's parents gave $25,000 cash and 
$21,500 discount toward purchase price, equaling a total gift of 
$46,500.

The 
current value $71,000 - 46,- less gift 500 _______ $24,500 marital equity · 2 
_______ $12,250 husband's equity