Case Title: KATHERINE J. ALLEN FORBIS V. TIMOTHY DALE FORBIS

Citation: 

Docket Number: S-08-0063

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 2009-03-19T00:00:00Z

Document:
KATHERINE J. ALLEN FORBIS V. TIMOTHY DALE FORBIS2009 WY 41203 P.3d 421Case Number: S-08-0063Decided: 03/19/2009
OCTOBER 
TERM, A.D. 2008

 
 
KATHERINE 
J. ALLEN FORBIS,Appellant(Plaintiff),v.TIMOTHY DALE 
FORBIS,Appellee(Defendant).

 
 
Appeal 
from the District Court of Laramie County

The 
Honorable Edward L. Grant, Judge

 
 

Representing 
Appellant:

Mitchell 
E. Osborn, Attorney at Law, Cheyenne, Wyoming 

 
 

Representing 
Appellee:

Matthew 
H. Romsa, John M. Kuker, and James M. Peterson of Romsa & Kuker, LLC, 
Cheyenne, Wyoming 

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

 
 

GOLDEN, 
Justice. 

 
 
[¶1]      Appellant 
Katherine J. Allen Forbis (Wife) seeks review of the district court's divorce 
decree which ended her marriage to Timothy Dale Forbis (Husband).  Wife asserts error in the district 
court's division of the marital property.  
We affirm.

 
 

ISSUES

 
 
[¶2]      Wife presents 
these issues for our review:

 
 
I.          
Did the Trial Court abuse its discretion by unilaterally rescinding its 
award from the Bench to he [sic] Appellant of the $14,000.00 Boat, along with 
other assets, after the conclusion of the Trial?

 
 
II.         
Did the Trial Court abuse its discretion by failing to award the 
Appellant a judgment against the Appellee for the $16,000.00 premarital funds 
she held for her children which were absconded by Appellee during the 
marriage?

 
 

FACTS

 
 
[¶3]      The parties were 
married in July of 2001.  This was 
Wife's second marriage and Husband's third marriage.  The parties both owned premarital real 
property and, shortly after their marriage, they purchased a marital home.  During the course of the marriage, 
Husband operated a real estate management company known as TD Real Estate, LLC, 
and Wife operated a home repair and remodeling business known as TD Repair, LLC, 
performing work primarily for TD Real Estate, LLC.  The parties also invested in rental real 
estate through J & F Investments, LLC,1 a business in which Husband and 
Wife each owned a twenty-five percent interest, and acquired several vehicles 
and a Crestliner boat.  

 
 
[¶4]      The marriage 
eventually broke down and, in October 2006, Wife filed a complaint for judicial 
separation.  Husband responded to 
Wife's complaint and counterclaimed for a divorce.  The parties were unable to reach an 
agreement concerning the marital property, and a bench trial was held on 
September 24, 2007.  At the 
conclusion of the trial, the district court announced its decision from the 
bench.  Among other things, the 
district court awarded to Husband the marital home, his premarital home, TD Real 
Estate, LLC, and two vehicles.  The 
district court awarded to Wife her premarital home, the parties' interest in J 
& F Investments, LLC, the Crestliner boat, and two vehicles.  Two days later, on September 26, the 
district court sent a letter notifying the parties that it had erred in its oral 
pronouncement concerning the Crestliner boat.  The district court stated that it had 
intended to award the boat to Husband, instead of Wife.  A divorce decree was entered reflecting 
the district court's decision.  Wife 
timely appealed.

 
 

STANDARD 
OF REVIEW

 
 
[¶5]      The division of 
marital property is within the trial court's sound discretion.  Hall v. Hall, 2005 WY 166, ¶ 5, 125 P.3d 284, 286 (Wyo. 2005); DeJohn v. 
DeJohn, 2005 WY 140, ¶ 11, 121 P.2d 802, 807 (Wyo. 2005); Hoffman v. Hoffman, 2004 WY 68, ¶ 9, 91 P.3d 922, 925 (Wyo. 2004).  We 
afford the trial court considerable discretion to structure a distribution 
scheme appropriate to the peculiar circumstances of the case, and we will not 
disturb its determination absent clear grounds demonstrating that the court 
abused its discretion.  Hoffman, ¶ 9, 91 P.3d  at 925.  The ultimate question in determining 
whether an abuse of discretion occurred is whether the trial court could 
reasonably conclude as it did.  Id., ¶ 10, 91 P.3d  at 925.  We will find an abuse of discretion when 
the property disposition shocks the conscience of the Court and appears to be so 
unfair and inequitable that reasonable people could not abide it.  Hall, ¶ 5, 125 P.3d  at 286; Mann v. Mann, 979 P.2d 497, 500 (Wyo. 
1999).

 
 

DISCUSSION

 
 
[¶6]      Wife first 
contends the district court erred in unilaterally rescinding its award of the 
Crestliner boat to her and awarding it to Husband.  Wife asserts that the district court 
clearly intended, as reflected in its oral pronouncement, that she should have 
the boat.  She claims the district 
court's subsequent decision to award the boat to Husband was the result of a 
mistake by the district court concerning the marital assets, and she urges this 
Court to correct the divorce decree to reflect the district court's oral 
pronouncement.  Husband counters 
that the district court's decision was not the product of a mistake but was a 
result of the exercise of sound discretion.  Husband further contends the district 
court's oral pronouncement was not a final order and, consequently, the district 
court had the authority to modify its division of the marital property.  We agree with 
Husband.

 
 
[¶7]      Our review of the 
record reveals no evidence supporting Wife's claim that the district court's 
decision to award the boat to Husband was premised on a mistake concerning the 
marital assets.  Nor do we find any 
record support for Wife's assertion that the district court clearly intended for 
her to receive the boat.  The record 
reflects the district court simply misstated its intention regarding the boat in 
announcing its decision from the bench.  
In its letter to the parties, the district court made clear it had 
intended to award the boat to Husband and had, instead, erroneously awarded the 
boat to Wife.  

 
 
[¶8]      Further, the 
district court was not bound by its oral pronouncement concerning the 
disposition of the boat, as Wife contends.  
We have previously held that a district court may, in the exercise of its 
discretion, modify its decision regarding the marital assets until entry of the 
divorce decree.  Madigan v. Maas, 2005 WY 91, ¶ 11, 117 P.3d 1194, 1197 (Wyo. 2005); Broadhead v. 
Broadhead, 737 P.2d 731, 733 (Wyo. 1987).  Here, the district court simply 
exercised that discretionary authority to correct its earlier erroneous oral 
ruling to reflect its intention regarding the boat.  Under the circumstances, we cannot 
conclude the district court abused its discretion.

 
 
[¶9]      In her second 
issue, Wife faults the district court for not awarding her a judgment against 
Husband for $16,000.00 in premarital funds.  As best we can discern from the record, 
Wife invested $3,800.00 of premarital inheritance money in J & F 
Investments, LLC, to purchase a four-plex.  
J & F Investments, LLC, later sold the four-plex, and Husband and 
Wife received $32,000.00 in proceeds.  
Husband used the total proceeds to pay off debt incurred by TD Real 
Estate, LLC.  Wife's complaint 
concerns what she contends is her share of the sale proceeds Husband 
expended.

 
 
[¶10]   Our review of this issue is 
inhibited by Wife's failure to identify any factual or legal grounds upon which 
her claimed entitlement is based.  
Wife's argument consists solely of isolated excerpts from the trial 
transcript and a naked assertion that the district court "abuse[d] its 
discretion by not awarding to [her] the $16,000.00 she would have realized upon 
the sale of the real estate."  We 
have consistently refused to consider claims not supported by cogent argument or 
citation to pertinent legal authority.  
Dunsmore v. Dunsmore, 2007 WY 
202, ¶ 27, 173 P.3d 389, 394 (Wyo. 2007); Odegard v. Odegard, 2003 WY 67, ¶ 29, 69 P.3d 917, 925 (Wyo. 2003).  We 
decline to deviate from that rule in this instance.

 
 
[¶11]   As a final matter, Husband requests 
that we award him attorney fees and costs pursuant to W.R.A.P. 10.05 for having 
to defend against what he claims is a frivolous appeal.  Sanctions under Rule 10.05 are not 
generally available where, as here, an appeal challenges a trial court's 
discretionary ruling.  Donnelly v. Donnelly, 2004 WY 72, ¶ 24, 
92 P.3d 298, 308 (Wyo. 2004); Dorsett v. 
Moore, 2003 WY 7, ¶ 14, 61 P.3d 1221, 1225 (Wyo. 2003).  Although we have departed from this 
general rule in the past, see Montoya v. Navarette-Montoya, 2005 WY 
161, ¶ 9, 125 P.3d 265, 269 (Wyo. 2005); Barnes v. Barnes, 998 P.2d 942, 946 
(Wyo. 2000), we do not consider sanctions appropriate in this case.  We therefore deny Husband's request for 
attorney's fees and costs.

 
 

CONCLUSION

 
 
[¶12]   We find no abuse of discretion in 
the district court's allocation of the parties' marital property.  The decree of the district court is, 
therefore, affirmed in all respects.  
Further, we decline to impose sanctions under W.R.A.P. 10.05 in this 
matter. 

 
 
FOOTNOTES

 
 

1Throughout the record, the parties, as well as the district court, refer 
to this business as J & F Investments, LLC; however, the Articles of 
Organization filed with the Wyoming Secretary of State indicate the name of the 
business is J & F Family Properties, LLC.