### IN THE SUPREME COURT, STATE OF WYOMING

202 4 WY 90

APRIL TERM, A.D. 202 4

August 21, 2024

WADE JEFFERY REGAN

,

Appellant ( Defendant ),

v.

TANYA JEAN REGAN,

Appellee ( Plaintiff ). S-24-0074

Appeal from the District Court of Weston County The Honorable Stuart S. Healy III, Judge

Representing Appellant: Michael Stulken, Newcastle, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee: No appearance.

Before FOX, C.J., and BOOMGAARDEN, GRAY, FENN, and JAROSH, JJ.

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in Pacific Reporter Third. Readers are requested to notify the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Supreme Court Building, Cheyenne, Wyoming 82002, of any typographical or other formal errors so that correction may be made before final publication in the permanent volume.1 BOOMGAARDEN, Justice.

[¶ 1 ] Wade Jeffery Regan (Husband) appeals the district court’s order d ivi ding the marital
property between him and Tanya Jean Regan (Wife) a fter the court granted the parties a divorce . We affirm.

ISSUE

[¶ 2 ] Husband raises two issues we rephrase as one:

Whether the district court abused its discretion when it divided the marital property

.

FACTS

[¶ 3 ] In 2014, Wife and her two children from another relationship moved in with

Husband

. Wife had a child with Husband in 2018 . The parties married in 2019. D uring the marriage, Husban d ran a trucking business and Wife assisted him with bookkeeping.

Wife also briefly worked at a mental health facility and later as a secretary at a hospital

. The parties separated in March 2022

. Wife filed for divorce soon after

.

[¶ 4 ] In January 2023, the parties filed, and the district court entered

, a stipulated decree

of divorce , settling child custody, visitation, and child support. The parties disputed the disposition of marital property. The district court held a bench trial in April and ruled from

the bench

. In November, the court entered its final order dividing the marital property

. The court considered the equitable value in the parties’ marital home

, rental property

, livestock, personal vehicles, personal property

, and deb ts

. The court then divided the parties’ separate debts and assigned the m their personal vehicles and other personal

property, assigned Husband the marital home, and assi gned Wife her retirement funds and

an equalization payment from Father.

[¶ 5 ] Husband timely appealed and filed a W.R.A.P. 3.03 statement of the evidence with

the district court because the bench trial w as unrecorded. 1 The court settled the statement

of evidence for the record on appeal

.

1 W.R.A.P. 3.03 states, in part: “ If no report of the evidence or proceedings at a hearing or trial was made, or if a transcript is unavailable, appellant may prepare a statement of the evidence or proceedings from the best available means including appellant ’ s recollection. The statement shall be filed in the trial court

. . . . The trial court shall, within 10 days, enter its order settling and approving the statement of evidence, which

shall be i ncluded by the clerk of the trial court in the record on appeal

. ”2 DISCUSSION

[ ¶ 6 ] We review the district court’s division of marital property for an abuse of discretion

, focus ing on whether the court could reasonably conclude as it did

. Hyatt v. Hyatt , 2023 WY 129, ¶ 11, 540 P.3d 873, 880 (Wyo. 2023) (citation s omitted). “ We do not di sturb a property division in a divorce except on clear grounds, because ‘ the trial court is usually in a better position than the appellate court to judge the parties’ needs and the merits of their positions. ’” Bail e y v. Bail e y , 2024 WY 65, ¶ 26, 550 P.3d 537, 547 (Wyo. 2024) (citation omitted). An abuse of discretion will be found if the property division shocks the conscience of this Court and appears “so unfair and inequitable that reasonable people cannot abide by it.” Bail e y , 2024 WY 65, ¶ 26, 550 P .3d at 547 (quoting Hyatt , 2023 WY 129, ¶ 11, 540 P.3d at 880 ).

[¶ 7 ] In reviewing a district court’s factual findings after a bench trial , we have stated :

The factual findings of a judge are not entitled to the limited review afforded a jury verdict. While the findings are presumptively correct, the appellate court may examine all of the properly admissible evidence in the record. Due regard is given to the opportunity of the trial judge to assess the credibility of the witnesses, and our re view does not entail reweighing disputed evidence. Findings of fact will not be set aside unless they are clearly erroneous. A finding is clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite

and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. In considering a trial court ’ s factual findings, we assume that the evidence of the prevailing party below is true and give that party every reasonable inference that can fairly and reasonably

be drawn from it. We do not substitute ourselves for the trial court as a finder of facts; instead, we defer to those findings unless they are unsupported by the record or erroneous as a

matter of law.

Koch v. Gray , 2024 WY 41, ¶ 10, 546 P.3d 1095, 1099 (Wyo. 2024) (citation omitted).

Because the record contains no transcript of the relevant proceeding below, our review is

limited to the statement of evidence supplied under W.R.A.P. 3.03

. 2 See id. at ¶ 9; Engebretsen v. Engebretsen , 2022 WY 164, ¶ 19, 522 P.3d 156, 162 (Wyo. 2022) ( “To the

2 In cases where an appellant fail s to obtain a statement of evidence under W.R.A.P. 3.03, this Court has

had “ no choice but to assume that the evidence supports the district court ’ s finding s.” McGill v. McGill

, 2022 WY 149, ¶ 16, 520 P.3d 1129, 1133 (Wyo. 2022) ( quoting Nw. Bldg. Co. v. Nw. Distrib. Co. , 2012 WY 113, ¶ 1 7 , 285 P.3d 239, 24 3 (Wyo. 2012) ); Kruse v. Kruse

, 2010 WY 144, ¶ 12, 242 P.3d 1011, 1014 (Wyo. 2010).3 extent that we can assess the district court’s exercise of discretion based on the limited record before us, we shall do so.” (citation omitted)).

[¶ 8 ] Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 20

- 2

- 114(a) (2023) states:

[I] n 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.

“There are no specific guidelines as to the weight the district court must afford the statutory considerations when making a property d ivision.” Innes v. Innes , 2021 WY 137, ¶ 15, 500 P.3d 259, 262 (Wyo. 2021) (citation s omitted)

. The statute does not require an equal

division of property

. Bail e y , 2024 WY 65, ¶ 26, 550 P.3d at 547 (citations omitted). Rather, a “just and equitable” di vision is likely to be unequal. Id. (citation omitted)

. We evaluate the equity of the district court’s property division “ from the perspective of the overall distribution rather than from a narrow focus on the effects of any particular disposition.” Id. (quoting Innes , 2021 WY 137, ¶ 17, 500 P.3d at 262 ).

[¶ 9 ] Husband challenges the district court’s factual findings in its property division

order . He first argues the court clearly erred when it failed to allocate any portion of a debt

owed to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to Wife

. The record shows no such error. At the outset of the bench trial, the parties presented a joint property summary to the court, indicating an IRS debt in the amount of $210,000

. Husband testified the debt was a back tax penalty he incurred for failing to pay business taxes . He also testified the debt

accumulated between 2011 and 2016 and can be attributed solely to him

. In its written order, the court found it was unable to calculate the IRS d ebt because “the re was not any credible evidence produced at trial.”

[¶10] Husband contends this finding is inconsistent with Wife ’s testimony that she generally agreed with the values in the joint property summary , which included the IRS

debt

. The statement of the evidence , however, indicates the testimony regarding the IRS

debt was “unclear

. ” B eyond Father’s testimony and the joint property s ummary , the record

contains no further evidence pertaining to the IRS debt. In other words, the record do es not contradict the district court’s finding

. Therefore, we conclude the court did not clearly

error when it found no credible evidence of the IRS debt was produced at trial

. See Koch

, 2024 WY 41, ¶ 10, 546 P.3d at 1099 (citation omitted).

[¶ 11 ] Husb and next argue s the district court clearly erred when it considered a portion of

his business to be marital property for purposes of calculating the parties’ total assets and4 that this value is unsupported by the record . The district court found the total value of Husband’s trucking business is $182,310. It then found $35,000 of that value constituted

marital property based on Wife’s contribution to the business and her role in helping raise

the child ren and maintainin g the marital home

. Contrary to Husband’s assertions, the record supports th ese findings. Wife testified she performed book keep ing work for

Husband’s business and was the primary caretaker of the marital home and the children

because Husband was often at work

. Husband also testified that he worked long hours and Wife performed work for the business

. Under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 20

- 2

- 114(a) all the parties ’ property may be subject to division upon divorce. Hall v. Hall , 2005 WY 166, ¶ 8, 125 P.3d 284, 287 (Wyo. 2005) (citations omitted). Therefore, the district court did not clearly error when it established a value for the marital portion of Husband’s business in

its calculation of the parties’ total assets

.

[¶ 12 ] Husband further arg ues the district court abused its discretion because it did not appropriately consider the factors under the property division statute when it ordered him to make a $138,000 equalization payment to Wife

. 3 He contends the court did not consider

his IRS de bt and other financial obligations such as his mortgage and child support
payments when it required him to make the equalization payment. Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 20

- 2

- 114(a) does not require the court to specifically address and make find ings for each

factor

. It merely requires the court to have “regard” for each factor when m aking a property

division. Id. ; see also Stoker v. Stoker , 2005 WY 39, ¶ 22, 109 P.3d 59, 65 (Wyo. 2005) (“ There are ‘no hard and fast rules ’ governing property divisions.” (citation omitted)). A

review of the district court’s order demonstrates it gave appropriate regard to the statutory

factors.

[¶13] Indeed, t he district court expressly stated it considered all the factors under the

stat ute. After identifying , valuing, and setting over various asset categories to one party or the other, t he court found (1) the total value of assets set over to Husband totaled $299,545

which included the marital home, rental property, livestock, bank acco unt, and his business, and (2) his debts totaled $ 24,000. As discussed above, the court found no credible evidence pertaining to Husband’s IRS debt. The court found Wife’s equitable share of the total

assets was $149,435 ; her share of debt was $14,960

. It also found Husband’s business

income in 2021 was $112,00 and rose to $120,000 in 2022

. Husband earned upwards of $4,000 a month in net income

. Wife earned less at $17 an hour with a net income of $2,000

a month but had a future earning capacity of $25 an hour

. The court then determined an equitable distribution of the marital estate required an equalization payment from Husband

3 Husband also argues the district court abused its discretion because it failed to consider the seven

- month delay between its oral ruling and the entry of the final order as it relates to his ability to pay the equalization
payment , citing to Castellow v. Pettengill

, 2021 WY 88, ¶ 9, 492 P.3d 894 , 897

– 98 (Wyo. 2021) ( analyzing whether a district court’s delay in issuing a final custody decision constituted reversable error under

U.R.D.C. 90 2 )

. Yet, Husb and states in his brief that “ [t]here is nothing in the record which would indicate how this delay would effect [his] ability to pay ” the equalization payment. Because Husband’s argument admittedly lacks any support in the record

, we need not consider it further

.5 to Wife in the amount of $138,000

. It is clear the court had regard for the condition the parties would be le ft in after the divorce

. See Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 20

- 2

- 114(a). It is also clear the court had regard for the party through whom the property was acquired and the

burden s imposed on the property for the benefit of either party when it assigned Husband

the ma rital home

, which included the mortgage, and credited him $50,000 for the down
payment he made when he purchased it

. See id.

[¶ 14 ] Husband also asserts the district court failed to consider the merits of the parties

— particularly

, Wife’s “fault” in taking $27, 9 00 from their joint bank account prior to filing

for divorce. See Conzelman v. Conzelman , 2019 WY 123, ¶ 20, 453 P.3d 773, 779 (Wyo. 2019) (“ As our precedent plainly provides, a trial court may consider fault of the parties when dividing marital property [.]” (citation s omitted)). Husband is mistaken, as the order

makes clear the court considered Wife’s post

- separation cash withdrawal

. After finding

Wife had received $27,900 at separation, leaving Husband with $14,100 in the joint bank

account , the court set over $20,000 to Husband

. The court thus considered the merits of the parties

. See id.

[¶ 15 ] Because the district court reasonably considered each of the statutory factors under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 20

- 2

- 114(a)

, its property division is not so unfair and inequitable that reasonable people cannot abide by it

. Moreover, the court’s ruling does not shock our conscience . W e affirm

.