Opinion ID: 6496578
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Inequitable Property Distribution

Text: [¶38] Husband asserts the Paris apartment must be transferred to him as his sole and separate property, or the property division in the MSA would be inequitable and must be set aside. We have stated: [E]ven though property settlements are favored by the courts and are generally recognized in Wyoming, the parties cannot oust a court’s statutory duty to “make such disposition of the property of the parties as appears just and equitable” by entering into a property settlement agreement which the judge cannot in good conscience approve and adopt when granting a divorce. David v. David, 724 P.2d 1141, 1143 (Wyo. 1986) (citing Leighton v. Leighton, 261 N.W.2d 457 (Wis. 1978); 24 Am. Jur. 2d Divorce and Separation § [528]). However, a property settlement incorporated into a decree will not be set aside unless the distribution would shock the conscience of the court, and it appears to be so unfair and inequitable that reasonable persons could not abide it. Long v. Long, 2018 WY 26, ¶ 22, 413 P.3d 117, 125 (Wyo. 2018) (citing Kummerfeld v. Kummerfeld, 2013 WY 112, ¶ 7, 309 P.3d 822, 824 (Wyo. 2013). “The question cannot be, What would we have done as trial judges? but must be and is, Did the trial judge act so outrageously in his property settlement decision as to constitute an abuse of discretion?” Paul v. Paul, 616 P.2d 707, 714 (Wyo. 1980). [¶39] The property division in the MSA does not shock the conscience. Husband will receive the Paris apartment, subject to the alienability restrictions of the SCI, which has substantial value. He will also receive a substantial cash equalization payment, valuable cars, paintings, and a wine collection. We cannot say this division is so unfair and inequitable that reasonable persons could not abide it. Long, ¶22, 413 P.3d at 125. The district court did not err by enforcing the MSA and incorporating its terms into a decree. II. Denial of the Motion for Sanctions [¶40] Husband contends the district court erred when it denied his motion for sanctions on the basis that it was moot. Husband filed his motion under Rule 37 of the Wyoming Rules of Civil Procedure. As grounds for the motion, Husband renewed his allegations Wife failed to disclose her interests in some of her family’s trusts. The district court determined the motion was moot because the parties entered into a binding settlement agreement that resolved all outstanding issues. 14 [¶41] We review a district court’s rulings on discovery issues, including the issuance or non-issuance of sanctions, for an abuse of discretion. Herrick v. Jackson Hole Airport Bd., 2019 WY 118, ¶ 11, 452 P.3d 1276, 1280 (Wyo. 2019). The question is whether the district court could have reasonably concluded as it did. Sears, ¶ 13, 479 P.3d at 772 (quoting Johnson, ¶ 8, 418 P.3d at 822). [¶42] “[T]he central question in a mootness case is ‘whether decision of a once living dispute continues to be justified by a sufficient prospect that the decision will have an impact on the parties. [13B Charles Alan] Wright [et al., Federal Practice & Procedure: Jurisdiction] § 3533 [(3d ed 2008)].’” In re SNK, 2003 WY 141, ¶ 17, 78 P.3d 1032, 1037 (Wyo. 2003) (quoting Sw. Pub. Serv. Co. v. Thunder Basin Coal Co., 978 P.2d 1138, 1142– 43 (Wyo. 1999)). The doctrine of mootness recognizes courts “do not wish to make law, nor to waste their limited resources, simply to satisfy a litigant’s curiosity or a naked desire for vindication.” Wright et al., supra § 3533. Mootness questions, like other questions arising from settlement agreements, should be answered according to the intent of the parties. Reiman, 838 P.2d at 1187–88 (Wright et al., supra, § 3533.2). [¶43] The parties intended the MSA to be a full, final, and binding settlement agreement that would resolve “all outstanding issues” in the divorce action. The MSA provided it could “be used by either party to facilitate final resolution of the case including a request to incorporate the terms of this Agreement in a final Judgment and Decree of Divorce.” The parties intended to resolve all their issues and avoid further litigation when they signed the MSA. Because the district court found the MSA was valid and enforceable, there was no reason to allow additional discovery, strike pleadings, enter default, preclude the introduction of certain evidence at trial, dismiss the case, or impose any of the other sanctions listed in W.R.C.P. 37. The district court did not abuse its discretion when it determined the motion for sanctions was moot. [¶44] The second half of Husband’s motion for sanctions referenced Rule 60 of the Wyoming Rules of Civil Procedure and asked the district court to set aside the MSA on the grounds of fraud. He again alleged Wife committed fraud by misrepresenting material information about the children’s consent during the mediation. This motion suffered from the same deficiency as his motion to vacate the MSA. It did not allege Wife made the statement “intentionally, with knowledge of its falsity,” or she “was at least aware that [s]he did not have a basis for making the statement.” Excel Const., ¶ 33, 228 P.3d at 48– 49. Husband did not allege fraud with particularity, and the district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied the motion. III. Forum Non Conveniens [¶45] As a final argument, Husband argues the district court abused its discretion when it 15 denied his motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens.10 We generally review a district court’s ruling regarding inconvenient forum for an abuse of discretion. Saunders v. Saunders, 2019 WY 82, ¶ 10, 445 P.3d 991, 996 (citing Burnham v. Coffinberry, 2003 WY 109, ¶ 8, 76 P.3d 296, 299 (Wyo. 2003); West Texas Utils. Co. v. Exxon Coal USA, Inc., 807 P.2d 932, 935 (Wyo. 1991)). Husband essentially argues the district court did not properly weigh the factors we adopted in Saunders. [¶46] However, earlier in this opinion, we found the parties entered into a valid, enforceable settlement agreement that was intended to resolve all the pending issues in this litigation. This would include any issues about whether Wyoming was the proper forum for this divorce. The parties reduced their contract to writing, and they must abide by its plainly stated terms. Patel, 926 P.2d at 966. Husband relinquished any claim about inconvenient forum when he entered into the MSA, and we will enforce this relinquishment. See Cowboy’s LLC v. Schumacher, 2018 WY 61, ¶ 13, 419 P.3d 498, 502 (Wyo. 2018).