Title: LORRAINE M. KELLER V. RONALD D. KELLER

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

LORRAINE M. KELLER V. RONALD D. KELLER2006 WY 138145 P.3d 451Case Number: 06-57Decided: 10/31/2006
OCTOBER 
TERM, A.D. 2006

 
 

LORRAINE M. KELLER,

 
 
Appellant

(Defendant),

 
 
v.

 
 
RONALD D. 
KELLER,

 
 
Appellee

(Plaintiff).

 
 
Appeal from the 
DistrictCourtofWashakieCounty

The Honorable Gary P. 
Hartman, Judge

 
 
Representing Appellant:

 
 
William R. Shelledy, Jr., of Scott, Shelledy and 
Luhm, P.C., Worland, 
Wyoming.

 
 
Representing Appellee:

 
 
John Davis, of Davis & Harrington, P.C., 
Worland, Wyoming.

 
 
            

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

 
 
BURKE, 
Justice.

 
 
[¶1]      Lorraine M. 
Keller (Wife) appeals the property distribution portion of the divorce decree 
granting her a divorce from Ronald D. Keller (Husband).  She claims that the trial court abused 
its discretion when it used actuarial tables to determine the present value of 
Husband's state retirement and Social Security benefits.  We find no abuse of discretion and 
affirm.

 
 
ISSUE

 
 
[¶2]      Wife presents one 
issue for review:

 
 
Whether the district 
court abused its discretion in granting Appellee an additional $56,000.00 as the 
present value of the social security and state retirement benefits that 
Appellant may receive in addition [to] what Appellee receives if Appellee dies 
when he is 80 years of age and Appellant lives an additional four years and dies 
at the age of 84 years of age according to the actuarial 
tables?

 
 
Husband states the issue 
as follows:

 
 
Did the district court 
abuse its discretion when it considered an expert's valuation of pension 
annuities, along with other factors set out in § 20-2-114, Wyo. Stat. Ann. 
(Lexis 2005), when determining an equitable disposition of marital 
property?

 
 
FACTS

            

[¶3]      The parties were 
married in 1961 and had two children, both of whom are now grown.  The parties farmed for the first fifteen 
years of their marriage.  With a few 
minor exceptions, Wife did not work outside the home during the marriage.  Due to Husband's health problems, the 
parties sold the farm and Husband began working as an agricultural field 
inspector for the State of Wyoming.  
He worked for the State for 25 years and retired in January of 2004. 
Shortly thereafter, the parties began having marital troubles and Husband filed 
for divorce in June of 2005.  

 
 
[¶4]      During the course 
of the divorce proceedings, the parties were able to reach an agreement as to 
the division of the majority of their assets and entered into a stipulation 
concerning the distribution of those assets.  In the stipulation, they agreed to 
divide equally a deferred compensation plan valued at $125,000, their marital 
home and possessions valued at $200,000, and IRAs valued at $138,000.  The parties then requested that the 
district court rule on one issue:  
the division of their Social Security benefits and Husband's State 
retirement benefits.  Article two of 
the parties' stipulation specified:

 
 
The parties hereby agree 
that they reserve for presentation and resolution by the district court issues 
relating to the State of Wyoming and Social Security pension plan.  These include issues regarding the 
appropriate distribution of the Social Security entitlement monies, the values 
of the pension plan distribution arrangements as finally resolved, and how these 
values should be borne by each party in light of all the factors of the 
case.

 
 
[¶5]      After receiving 
evidence on the matter, the district court concluded that the values of 
Husband's State retirement account and Social Security pension plan should be 
reduced to their present value.  The 
district court then found that because Wife has a longer life expectancy, she 
would receive an additional $56,000 in retirement benefits.  The district court offset Wife's portion 
of the marital property by that amount.  

 
 
STANDARD OF 
REVIEW

 
 
[¶6]      As we have 
stated, "[t]he division of marital property is within the trial court's sound 
discretion, and we will not disturb that division absent an abuse of 
discretion."  Sweat v. Sweat, 2003 WY 82, ¶ 6, 72 P.3d 276, 278 (Wyo. 2003) (citing Carlton v. 
Carlton, 997 P.2d 1028, 1032 (Wyo. 2000)).  The ultimate question in determining 
whether an abuse of discretion occurred is whether the trial court could 
reasonably conclude as it did.  
Id.  In evaluating the trial court's 
decision, we keep in mind that the equitable division of property in a divorce 
case is as likely as not to be unequal.  
Id.  Further, the district court's division 
of marital property should not be disturbed except on clear grounds because the 
trial court is usually in a better position than the appellate court to judge 
the parties' respective merits and needs and is also in a better position to 
assess the witnesses' credibility and weigh their testimony.  Id.

  

DISCUSSION

 
 
[¶7]      Wife has taken 
the position that the district court abused its discretion in offsetting her 
distribution by $56,000.  She claims 
that the parties intended an "equal" division of their property and that life 
expectancy is mere speculation that should not be considered by the court in 
dividing property.  In response, 
Husband contends that the property division was supported by the testimony of 
Worland accountant, Larry Heiser, and was equitable, especially given the fact 
that Wife presented no evidence on the issue.  

 
 
[¶8]      The Wyoming statutes 
provide:

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. . . .

 
 

Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 20-2-114 
(LexisNexis 2005). 

 
 
[¶9]      In the case of Broadhead v. Broadhead, 737 P.2d 731, 
736-737 (Wyo. 
1987), we recognized the majority rule that retirement benefits earned during 
the marriage should be considered in the equitable division of the marital 
property.  We also held that if 
possible and practicable, the trial court should allocate the retirement fund at 
the time of the divorce in order to sever the ties of the parties so that they 
may start their lives anew.  
Id. at 739; Brockway v. Brockway, 921 P.2d 1104, 
1107 (Wyo. 
1996).  

 
 
[¶10]   In Broadhead, we addressed the valuation of 
retirement benefits that had not yet vested with the divorcing employee.  We held that 

 
 
[n]o mechanical process 
for the valuation of the employer contribution as nonvested is possible with the 
indeterminate expectancy that exists.  
It is recognized that actuarial experts can apply some rules of 
probability as appropriate evidence, but any opinion conclusion is subject to 
the conjectural effect of employee exercised options.  We specifically determine that the trial 
court is entitled to receive evidence and give valuative consideration to the 
nonvested employer's share of the state retirement program.  Obviously, age, work stability, length 
of service, likelihood of discharge, or voluntary pre-retirement work 
termination are all intangible factors to be considered in a generalized 
valuation of the present worth of future expectancy.  No specific rule or arrangement can be 
made applicable for each individual case.  

 
 

Id., 737 P.2d  at 738 
(internal citation omitted).   

 
 
[¶11]   Here, because Husband had already 
retired, the district court did not have to consider questions such as work 
stability or likelihood of discharge.  
Rather, the sole questions were the value and equitable distribution of 
the State retirement and Social Security at the time of the divorce.  The court received evidence as to the 
present value of both Husband's State retirement and the parties' Social 
Security.  The court also received 
evidence regarding life expectancy of the parties and concluded that, based upon 
life expectancy, Wife would receive an additional $56,000 in benefits during her 
lifetime.  The court then offset her 
distribution by that amount.  

 
 
[¶12]   Wife presented no evidence on the 
question of present value, life expectancy, or alternate methods for valuing the 
retirement accounts.  Rather, she 
contends that the court abused its discretion by considering life 
expectancy.  However, when marital 
property is divided, the statute requires the court to consider a number of 
factors and to divide property equitably, not necessarily equally.  In reviewing the trial court's decision, 
and considering the evidence in favor of Husband as the successful party, we 
hold the trial court could reasonably conclude as it did that the $56,000 offset 
was equitable, and did not abuse its discretion.  

 
 
[¶13]   We affirm.