Opinion ID: 2640093
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The District Court Had the Authority to Order Mr. Burnett in August 2007 to Pay the February 2006 Judgment in Cash.

Text: [¶ 17] Mr. Burnett claims that Ms. Steeley's motion to lift the stay of execution, filed 18 months after the February 2006 judgment, was in effect a motion to alter or amend the judgment. He asserts that the district court was constrained by W.R.C.P. 59(e) and 60(b) from ordering him in August of 2007 to pay Ms. Steeley in cash when the February 2006 judgment allowed him to pay her in cash or property. He argues that the district court could alter the judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e) only upon a party's motion filed no later than ten days after its entry. Here, no party filed a motion within ten days of the February 2006 judgment; therefore, he asserts, Rule 59(e) provides no authority for the district court to order him 18 months later to pay Ms. Steeley in cash. [¶ 18] Mr. Burnett also argues the district court could, upon a party's motion within a reasonable time, order relief from the February 2006 judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b) upon a showing of one of the factors enumerated in the rule. [2] Because no motion was filed and no showing was made of any of the factors identified in Rule 60(b), Mr. Burnett argues the district court exceeded its authority in altering the February 2006 judgment in August 2007 to require him to pay Ms. Steeley in cash. Mr. Burnett also reiterates the arguments he presented in the district court to the effect that he attempted in good faith to pay the judgment by transferring property; Ms. Steeley rejected his efforts; he had clear title to the property and its value exceeded the judgment amount; and the appropriate resolution of the dispute was to order Ms. Steeley to accept the transfer of property. [¶ 19] Ms. Steeley responds that W.R.C.P. 59(e) and 60(b) are not applicable to the proceedings giving rise to this appeal. She asserts that when Mr. Burnett did not satisfy the February 2006 judgment by the date required, she was entitled to pursue enforcement proceedings and the district court had the discretion to enforce the judgment in the manner it did. Given Mr. Burnett's failure to pay the judgment as ordered and his efforts to delay payment and thwart the district court's ruling that she receive an equal share of the marital property, Ms. Steeley contends that he cannot be heard to complain now about the manner in which the district court enforced the judgment. [¶ 20] We agree that the issue before us does not concern a modification of a property division, but rather an enforcement proceeding brought after the judgment dividing the property became final and remained unsatisfied. The record in this case clearly reflects that the district court entered judgment requiring Mr. Burnett to pay $417,609 in cash or property by April 1, 2006. Mr. Burnett did not pay the judgment in cash or property by the date the court ordered, nor did he appeal the judgment. Consequently, the judgment became final and enforcement proceedings were the next appropriate step. [¶ 21] On June 20, 2006, Ms. Steeley sought to enforce the judgment. Among the enforcement avenues available to her, she elected to proceed under § 17-21-504, which allows a judgment creditor to reach a judgment debtor's share of partnership distributions in satisfaction of the judgment. In accordance with that provision, she asked the district court to issue an order charging Mr. Burnett's share of any partnership distributions due or to become due and appointing a receiver to take possession of them. The district court granted her request and entered an order to that effect. [¶ 22] When the judgment still remained unsatisfied by July of 2007, Ms. Steeley again sought enforcement. She filed a motion to lift the stay and for an order allowing her to proceed under Wyo. Stat. Ann., Title 1, Chapter 17, (LexisNexis 2007) to execute on the judgment, meaning the property would be sold at auction and the proceeds would be used to pay the outstanding judgment amount. The district court convened another hearing during which Mr. Burnett testified that:  he had conducted partnership business as usual, including the sale of partnership property without court approval, in direct contravention of the court's order to refrain from doing so until he satisfied the February 2006 judgment;  with the exception of the two parcels he sold in partial satisfaction of the judgment, none of the proceeds from the unauthorized sales of partnership property was used to satisfy the judgment;  not all of the partnership property was included in the court ordered appraisal;  he was, at the time of the hearing, in the process of borrowing $3,000,000.00, which he planned to use to further his business interests. [¶ 23] In addition to Mr. Burnett's testimony, the district court also heard Ms. Steeley's testimony that she was unable to work due to high levels of anxiety resulting from emotional and physical abuse she suffered during the last six years of her marriage. As a consequence, she used her retirement funds (incurring a penalty and income tax) and obtained a home equity loan to pay her living expenses, and borrowed money on a credit card to pay her attorney's fees. Ms. Steeley also testified that she did not accept the property Mr. Burnett offered in satisfaction of the judgment because she could not afford the cost of the appraisal required to sell the property and because the proposed transfer involved land subject to covenants that required the owner to fence out Mr. Burnett's cattle, which graze on the adjoining property where he holds the grazing right in perpetuity. She testified that she could not afford the fencing costs, did not live in Wyoming to maintain the fences and could not afford the cost of marketing and selling the property from out of state. Ms. Steeley also testified that Mr. Burnett's last offer to transfer property to her required her to first pay him $43,000, money which she did not have. She further testified that Mr. Burnett did not own the property he attempted to convey to her earlier by quitclaim deed; rather, the Burnett Ranches Partnership owned the property and it was subject to a $600,000 lien and a joint venture agreement. [¶ 24] This Court has said: Courts have inherent power to enforce their own judgments and should see to it that such judgments are enforced when they are called upon to do so. To deprive a court of power to execute its judgments is to impair its jurisdiction, and the general rule is that every court having jurisdiction to render a particular judgment has inherent power and authority to enforce it and to exercise equitable control over such enforcement. Thus, a court of equity has inherent power to enforce its decrees. A court of equity retains and possesses the power to control the manner of the execution of its decree, and has the inherent right to modify, by a subsequent order, the manner in which it shall be enforced. Hurd v. Nelson, 714 P.2d 767, 771 (Wyo. 1986). Applying these principles in Ahearn v. Ahearn, 993 P.2d 942, 947 (Wyo.1999), this Court held that a district court had the authority to order father to refund money to his children's bank accounts after withdrawing the funds without mother's consent in violation of the court's order. Citing Hurd, 714 P.2d at 771, the Court held that when father violated its order, the district court was well within its powers in ordering him to refund the money. Although Hurd and Ahearn involve substantially different facts than those presented in this case, the principles relied upon in those cases are equally applicable here. [¶ 25] The judgment in this case was to be paid by April 1, 2006. It was not paid and Mr. Burnett's initial offer to transfer property in satisfaction of the judgment involved parcels of property to which he did not have clear title. Mr. Burnett's subsequent offers of property appear to have included provisions or complications making acceptance by Ms. Steeley impossible or at least difficult in light of her financial situation and her residence out-of-state. Once the February 2006 judgment became final, Ms. Steeley had the legal right to proceed with enforcement. The fact that those proceedings did not result ultimately in sale of the property at auction and distribution of the proceeds to Ms. Steeley as provided by the enforcement statutes does not require reversal. Under the circumstances, the district court had the discretion to determine the manner in which to enforce the judgment, including the discretion to order Mr. Burnett to pay the unsatisfied judgment amount in cash.