Case Title: Chew v. Chew

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 1991-12-13T00:00:00Z

Document:
Chew v. Chew1991 WY 162821 P.2d 582Case Number: 91-175Decided: 12/13/1991Supreme Court of Wyoming
DOLORES L. CHEW, 
APPELLANT (PLAINTIFF),

v.

EDGAR F. CHEW, JR., 
APPELLEE (DEFENDANT).

Appeal from the District 
Court, NatronaCounty, Dan Spangler, 
J.

Larry R. Clapp of Clapp 
and Associates, P.C., Casper and Gayla Lou 
Daniels, Casper, 
for appellant.

William W. Harden, 
Casper, for 
appellee.

Before URBIGKIT, C.J., 
and THOMAS, CARDINE, MACY and GOLDEN, JJ.

URBIGKIT, Chief 
Justice.

[¶1.]     This appeal presents a 
divorce decree dispute about allocation of the husband's inheritance for court 
ordered property settlement when the case was not reported and settlement of the 
record, pursuant to W.R.A.P. 4.03, could not be accomplished.

I. ISSUES

[¶2.]     Appellant, Dolores L. 
Chew, finds as her issues:

     1. Did the district 
court err as a matter of law when it ruled that the husband's funds obtained 
through an inheritance while the husband and wife were married [were] the 
husband's separate property and not part of the marital estate?

     2. Did the district 
court abuse its discretion in failing to award the wife any portion of the 
inherited funds, thereby failing to provide for a division of the parties' 
marital property contrary to wife's exhibits?

[¶3.]     Appellee, Edgar F. 
Chew, Jr., addresses the issue of abuse of discretion in trial court decision 
and adds a request for the award of attorney's fees for the appeal pursuant to 
this court's appellate rules.

[¶4.]     We find no abuse of 
discretion demonstrated by the record presented, affirm the trial court and do 
not elect to grant attorney's fees for the appeal.

II. FACTS

[¶5.]     These litigants were 
married in 1948 and have three grown children. Apparently, according to 
uncontested statements in the appellate briefs, normal marital relations ended 
some ten years earlier before the trial court was asked by a complaint in 1990 
to grant a divorce and divide the accumulated property of the parties. The only 
subject of dissention and disagreement was the property division. The fairness 
addressed in the divorce decree is now attacked to the extent that a 1986 
inheritance by the husband was not factored into the divisional computation.1 

III. 
DISCUSSION

[¶6.]     We are presented the 
parenthetical question of what facts do we evaluate to assess abuse of 
discretion when there is no record of proceeding provided on appeal. This 
inquiry is exacerbated by the contentions raised in this court by a 
motion to strike and a motion to supplement the record where the counsel 
even disagreed about what exhibits should have been found in this record as 
received in evidence and whether, as a witness, the litigant husband actually 
testified at the trial.

[¶7.]     For whatever moment it 
might provide, the husband's answers to interrogatories, which may or may not 
have been introduced into evidence, although designated as defendant's 
(appellee's) Exhibit 3, showed a stock portfolio valued at $14,690 which 
constituted the retained residual of the inheritance which was originally in the 
amount of $85,640. The balance, he asserted in the interrogatory, had been 
essentially expended in family gifts and living expenses except for the purchase 
of a 1987 motor vehicle. Apparently, from documents now presented, appellee 
wanted a payment for the distribution differential at $39,018.50 
(defendant/appellee's Exhibit 4). Appellant argued for $15,173 and the trial 
court established that total at $33,700. The differential, if the answers to the 
interrogatories were used and pure mathematics applied, would adjust the trial 
court's decision by one-half of $14,690 ($7,345) and leave the judgment to total 
$26,355.

[¶8.]     We cannot and will not 
determine that the trial court abused its discretion on this state of the record 
or even attempt to establish a bright line rule for inclusion or exclusion of an 
inheritance in marital property settlement computation. Paul v. Paul, 616 P.2d 707 (Wyo. 
1980). Many factors might be incorporated into the decision, including 
commingling of assets, marital separation of the litigants for some significant 
time, uses of expended portions of the inheritance, resulting financial status 
of the parties, and general character of the marital estate requiring division. 
Sellers v. Sellers, 775 P.2d 1029 (Wyo. 1989). We do not establish by this 
incomplete listing that any or all of these possible inquires should necessarily 
be considered. Furthermore, this opinion will not establish that some bright 
line rule with appropriate exceptions in the proper case could not be justified 
when evaluated in future litigation. In present review, the basic problem 
evolves from any assumption, factually undemonstrable, about what factors were 
considered by the trial court in its division and whether the result is 
reasonable. Kane v. Kane, 706 P.2d 676 (Wyo. 
1985); Warren v. Warren, 361 P.2d 525 (Wyo. 1961).2

[¶9.]     This court has recently 
addressed this question of a requirement of a transcript record for proper 
review if contended abuse of discretion is raised. Nicholls v. Nicholls, 721 P.2d 1103 (Wyo. 1986); Feaster v. Feaster, 721 P.2d 1095 (Wyo. 1986).3 To provide an answer for this abuse 
of discretion claim, those cases are dispositive. There is no proper basis 
presented in this appeal to reverse the trial court for contended abuse of 
discretion in property division when we are furnished neither a transcript of 
the evidence or proceeding nor some settlement of the record documenting the 
testimony pursuant to W.R.A.P. 4.03. Overcast v. Overcast, 780 P.2d 1371 
(Wyo. 
1989).

IV. APPELLANT ATTORNEY'S 
FEES

[¶10.]  The issue is extremely close, but 
considering the existent contributory burden for the wife to make the equalizing 
payment to the husband and the academically interesting issue presented 
regarding the effect of an inheritance on divorce decree property division, we 
will not award attorney's fees to the appellee in addition to the normally 
assessed appeal costs. Appeals in future divorce cases which test the abuse of 
discretion may not be similarly justified where no evidentiary record is 
provided for review by this court.

V. CONCLUSION

[¶11.]  We do not determine that divorce cases 
cannot, at the option of the individual litigants, be tried without the presence 
of a court reporter. However, if this course is chosen, the client should be 
advised in advance that rights of an effective appeal may be foreclosed and even 
greater problems created if modification of child support or custody should 
sometime later develop based upon contentions of changed circumstances. 
Nicholls, 721 P.2d 1103.

[¶12.]  Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1 The trial court computed 
a total marital estate of $118,400, awarded the wife the value and items 
totaling $92,900, the husband $25,500, and decreed an equalization payment from 
the wife to effect a result of equality by her payment of $33,700 ($25,500 plus 
$33,700 equals $59,200; $92,900 minus $33,700 equals $59,200). Appellant argues 
that the total estate, including inheritance, was $140,000 of which the 
difference of $21,600 included "inheritance property" which should reduce the 
contributory burden of the wife to $15,173. (This computation is not clarified 
since one-half of $21,600 is $10,800 which would reduce the contributory burden 
to total $22,900).

2 Appellant properly 
recognizes the general rule in divorce decree property division that an 
inheritance can be considered in divisional decision. Barney v. Barney, 705 P.2d 342 (Wyo. 1985); Gaskie v. Gaskie, 188 Colo. 239, 534 P.2d 629 (1975); Jackson 
v. Jackson, 17 Conn. App. 431, 553 A.2d 631 (1989); Earle v. Earle, 13 Mass. 
App. 1062, 434 N.E.2d 1294 (1982); Morse v. Morse, 174 Mont. 541, 571 P.2d 1147 
(1977); Weeks v. Weeks, 124 N.H. 252, 469 A.2d 1313 (1983); Winter v. Winter, 
338 N.W.2d 819 (N.D. 1983); Murphy v. Murphy, 471 A.2d 619 (R.I. 
1984).

3 Appeal problems 
resulting from the absence of a complete record of proceedings are not confined 
to divorce cases as witnessed by the adoption by this court of the Bearpaw rule, 
W.R.A.P. 4.01. See Bearpaw v. State, 803 P.2d 70 (Wyo. 1990) and Valdez v. 
State, 727 P.2d 277 (Wyo. 1986). Issues in civil cases may 
similarly be foreclosed if aspects of the trial are excluded from court reporter 
participation, specifically including opening and closing arguments and voir 
dire examination.