Case Title: BELLESS v. BELLESS

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 2001-04-19T00:00:00Z

Document:
BELLESS v. BELLESS2001 WY 4121 P.3d 749Case Number: 00-195Decided: 04/19/2001
 APRIL TERM, A.D. 2001

                                                                                                          

 

DONALD 
DALE BELLESS,

Appellant(Defendant),

 

v.

 

SUSAN 
MARY BELLESS,

Appellee(Plaintiff).

  

Appeal 
from the District Court of Campbell County

The 
Honorable Dan R. Price II, Judge

 

Representing 
Appellant:

            
Steven R. Czoschke, Gillette, Wyoming  

 Representing 
Appellee:

Lori A. 
McMullen and Jonathan A. Botten of Lonabaugh and Riggs, Sheridan, Wyoming  

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

 

            
KITE, Justice.

 

[¶1]      Appellee Susan 
Belless (wife) filed a complaint for divorce.  Following trial, the court granted the 
divorce.  Appellant Donald Belless 
(husband) appeals and challenges the award of alimony to the wife.  The alimony award provided for ten years 
of payments based on a graduated scale, which began at $1,200 per month and over 
time reduced to $1,000 per month.  
Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm.

 

 

ISSUE

 

[¶2]      The husband 
presents the following issue for our review:

 

            
Did the District Court abuse its discretion when it ordered [the husband] 
to pay alimony in the amount and for the term specified?

 

The wife 
adopted the husband's statement of the issue.

 

 

FACTS

 

[¶3]      The parties were 
married on July 6, 1982, and no children were born of the marriage.  However, each party brought two children 
into the marriage.  Seventeen years 
later, the wife filed a complaint for divorce, citing irreconcilable 
differences, and the husband filed an answer.  Prior to trial, the parties entered into 
a Property Settlement Agreement and Stipulation which resolved issues regarding 
the division of marital property and debts.  The remaining issues of alimony and 
payment of the wife's attorney's fees proceeded to trial on April 26, 2000.  Following trial, the court granted the 
divorce and approved and adopted the Property Settlement Agreement and 
Stipulation.  In its decree, the 
trial court awarded alimony to the wife over a ten-year period on a graduated 
scale, which began at $1,200 per month and over time reduced to $1,000 per 
month.  The husband timely 
appealed.

 

[¶4]      During the 
marriage, the husband was employed by Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway 
Company.  In contrast, the wife was 
unemployed and testified that her primary role during the marriage was to rear 
their four children.  The wife 
suffered from medical conditions, which limited her ability to work to only 
part-time sedentary occupations, and she had no formal education beyond 
receiving her GED.  The evidence at 
trial revealed the husband had earned $98,377 in 1999.  He further testified that his take-home 
pay was $5,800 per month and his monthly expenses were approximately 
$4,100.

 

[¶5]      The wife desires 
to complete further education which would allow her to obtain a job within her 
medical constraints.  Testimony at 
trial revealed the current cost for the wife to obtain a bachelor's degree is 
approximately $15,000.  The wife 
testified at trial that she had approximately $1,281.45 in expenses per month 
which excluded any health care costs, medical prescription costs, and premiums 
for health and automobile insurance.  
The wife's costs for health and automobile insurance equate to an 
additional $353.08 per month, and, without prescription insurance coverage, her 
costs for prescriptions could exceed $1,220.29 per month.  Thus, the wife's monthly expenses could 
total $2,854.82.

 

  

STANDARD 
OF REVIEW

            

[¶6]      There are few 
rules more firmly established in our jurisprudence than the proposition that 
disposition of marital property, calculation of income for child support 
purposes, and the granting of alimony are committed to the sound discretion of 
the district court.  Johnson v. 
Johnson, 11 P.3d 948, 950 (Wyo. 2000).  
Judicial discretion is a composite of many things, among which are 
conclusions drawn from objective criteria; it means exercising sound judgment 
with regard to what is right under the circumstances and without doing so 
arbitrarily or capriciously.  
Id.; Vaughn v. State, 962 P.2d 149, 151 (Wyo. 1998).  We must ask ourselves whether the trial 
court could reasonably conclude as it did and whether any facet of its ruling 
was arbitrary or capricious.  
Johnson, 11 P.3d  at 950.  In accomplishing our review, we consider 
only the evidence in favor of the successful party, ignore the evidence of the 
unsuccessful party, and grant to the successful party every reasonable inference 
that can be drawn from the record.  
Id.

 

 

DISCUSSION

 

[¶7]      In the sole issue 
presented in this case, the husband contends the trial court abused its 
discretion when it ordered him to pay alimony in the amount and for the term 
specified.  The husband contends the 
ten-year term of alimony exceeds any time period discussed in the testimony and 
the trial court failed to provide a specific reason for the amount of time 
specified.

 

[¶8]      Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 
20-2-114 (LEXIS 2000) governs the division of marital property and the award of 
alimony:

 

            
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 thereof 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 
purpose of alimony is to provide a post-divorce substitute for the support 
provided to a spouse during the marriage.  
Johnson, 11 P.3d  at 951.  
It is for the support and maintenance of a former spouse who is unable to 
adequately provide for himself or herself.  
Id.  An award of 
property is a preferable modern substitute for alimony.  Id.  While in some cases alimony may be a 
necessity, "under ordinary circumstances it should be recognized that one spouse 
should not have a perpetual claim on the earnings of the other; that divorce, 
insofar as possible should sever the ties of the parties and they should begin 
to start their lives anew."  
Grosskopf v. Grosskopf, 677 P.2d 814, 821 (Wyo. 1984).  When alimony is awarded in the absence 
of a stipulated settlement between the parties, the record must reflect some 
evidence that alimony, with its special features, is needed.  Johnson, 11 P.2d  at 951.  If the intent is to adjust the 
equities between the parties at the time of the divorce, property division, 
which may encompass a series of payments, is the preferable method.  Id.

 

[¶9]      However, this 
court has also held on more than one occasion that "[t]here are times, of 
course, when a trial court may see fit to allow a wife less property than her 
fair share would be if property only were involved; and in order to even up the 
balance, the court may provide for alimony payments.'"  Id. (quoting Young v. 
Young, 472 P.2d 784, 787 (Wyo. 1970)).  We have held that, in determining 
whether a spouse is entitled to be awarded alimony, the trial court considers 
objective criteria including "the ability of the payor spouse to pay and the 
necessity of support of the payee.'"  
Johnson, 11 P.3d  at 950 (quoting Neville v. Neville, 8 P.3d 1072, 1073 (Wyo. 2000)). 

 

[¶10]   The pertinent provision of the 
trial court's decree is as follows:

 

Taking 
into consideration the condition each party will be left financially after the 
divorce, I order that alimony in the amount of $1,200 per month beginning June 
1, 2000 shall be paid by the [husband].  
This amount will reduce to $1,100 per month beginning June 1, 2003 and 
will then reduce to $1,000 per month beginning June 1, 2006 with the last 
payment due May 1, 2010.  All 
payments shall be made through the clerk of court.  The income withholding act shall apply 
and the amount may be deducted one-half out of each 
paycheck.

 

The 
husband asks this court to consider the Property Settlement Agreement and 
Stipulation entered into by the parties which made the husband responsible for 
all of the marital debt, whereas the wife departed the marriage free of 
debt.  However, the husband's 
testimony proved he had ample income to cover the alimony payments, and we can 
discern no evidence from the record to suggest otherwise.

 

[¶11]   Furthermore, the husband's annual 
income of $98,377 is clearly disproportionate to the wife's unemployed status at 
the time of trial.  The wife has 
only intermittent and insubstantial work experience, no formal education beyond 
a GED, no special skills or qualifications, and undisputed medical 
constraints.  As a result, testimony 
at trial revealed that the wife could anticipate a minimum wage earning 
potential absent a bachelor's degree.  
As the wife correctly points out, it is entirely within the discretion of 
the trial court to award alimony during a transition period wherein the party 
requesting alimony may gain special skills, education, or experience to enable 
the party to raise his or her earning capacity.  Hendrickson v. Hendrickson, 583 P.2d 1265, 1268 (Wyo. 1978).  A 
period of transition of ten years, during which the wife would receive alimony 
payments, does not appear unreasonable and will allow her to realize her goal of 
obtaining an education, thus increasing her earning potential.  The evidence in the record indicates the 
necessity of support for the wife as she is unable to adequately provide for 
herself and the husband is able to provide such support.

 

[¶12]   The wife appropriately compares the 
facts in this case to Johnson wherein we upheld alimony benefits that 
were awarded for eight years at $1,200 per month.  11 P.3d  at 952.  In that case, the appellant made less 
than the husband in the instant case, and the appellee had a job which provided 
a monthly salary of $800.  11 P.3d  
at 951.  Based upon the earning 
potential of each party, we determined that $1,200 per month for eight years was 
not beyond the bounds of reason.  11 P.3d  at 952.  We are compelled to 
reach the same result in this instance.  
The husband does not persuade us that the trial court failed to exercise 
sound judgment or otherwise abused its discretion by providing continuing 
support to the wife through an award of alimony.

 

[¶13]   Affirmed.