Opinion ID: 1085114
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: If the circumstances are right – we have never

Text: written anything or made any verbal promises, but I – I have given to two of them. The others could imagine that. Considering the testimony, the district court ruled: 11. [Wife’s] parents . . . sold 80 acres of land at a reduced price to [Husband] and his business partners in Bagley Construction, LLC and Turnerville Twin Peaks. This, in turn, would be sold for a residential development and the profit made would provide the funds needed to build the [parties’] house. To date, [Husband] has received $8[9],000 from this venture. [Husband] claims this is all he will receive. 9 12. Until [Husband’s] father, Kdell, went to China to teach in 2007, [Wife], [Husband], and their children lived in a small trailer on Kdell’s property. . . . When Kdell went to China, [Husband] and [Wife] moved into Kdell’s home in Fairview. During this time, [Husband] chose a location for their new home on his grandmother’s property (or property owned by Kdell as trustee for his mother). The house was constructed primarily through family labor. It is not subject to any mortgage. All of the family, [Husband], [Wife], the children, Kdell, and [Husband’s] brother . . . worked on it. The Court can reasonably conclude that a large part of the capital to purchase the building materials came from the funds obtained from the sale of the Turnerville property. The home, now complete, is a large log home with an insured value of $250,000. [Husband] now lives in the home and pays his father $500 per month to pay off the $53,000 loan Kdell obtained. 13. Thus, [Husband] and [Wife] have worked on a $250,000 home that is located on land they do not own. According to Kdell, the home was built so [Husband] and his family would have a place to live, but “no promises” that [Husband] would own the land [were] ever made. However, Kdell’s other children have received or will receive ownership of land now owned by his grandmother or her trust. As to [Husband], Kdell testified that [Husband] “might receive it, he might not. Things change.” 14. The circumstances shown in Kdell’s testimony, [Wife’s] testimony, and [Husband’s] testimony establish the following circumstances upon which the Court can reasonably infer that [Husband] will eventually get the home after [Wife] is out of the picture. In 2007 when Kdell went to China, it was clear that [Husband] and [Wife] needed a home larger than a trailer. With Kdell’s help in getting a loan of $53,000 and with his labor, they began construction on a home for [Husband] and [Wife]. There is a history of Kdell, acting as trustee for his mother, . . . giving a parcel of property to Kdell’s children so they could build their home on it. 10 Around 2009, before the home was completed, [Husband] and [Wife] were again in marital strife. They had divorced once and it looked like it could happen again. One can reasonably infer that Kdell and [Husband] decided to wait until things settled down before any property was conveyed to [Husband]. If [Husband] got the home too soon, it could be sold as a result of a divorce decree resulting in it being sold and a stranger living among the family, or in the alternative, [Wife] could receive it. Because Kdell and [his mother] are not parties to this case the Court cannot enforce against them whatever rights [Husband] or [Wife] may have to the value they have added to the land by building a house, but the Court can recognize and enforce equitable remedies between [Husband] and [Wife] and order [Husband] to compensate [Wife] for her contribution to [Husband’s] present economic benefit. 15. It appears that there is a net equity in the home of approximately $200,000 ($250,000 - $50,000 debt to Kdell). The Court finds that [Husband] and his family members did most of the work in building the home. [Wife] did work on the home and contribute[d] through her family; $89,000 was made available to help them. Whether this was used to support the family while [Husband] worked on the home or to provide funds for building materials doesn’t really matter. The Court finds that [Husband] should pay [Wife] $90,000 for her contribution in building the home, caring for the family, and for future support given her financial condition she will be left in following the divorce.2 [¶23] Husband claims the parties had no ownership in the land and, consequently, no ownership interest in the home. He argues, therefore, that the possibility that he would receive the land as a gift in the future was a “mere expectancy” that cannot be distributed in a divorce action. As we stated earlier, the court is statutorily obligated to dispose of the marital property “as appears just and equitable.” “[W]hen a court divides property incidental to the granting of a divorce, [it] is limited by the amount of property in its hands for division and a mere expectancy is not subject to division.” Storm v. Storm, 470 P.2d 367, 370 (Wyo. 1970). The Storm ruling was made in the context of an inheritance 2 We are not sure why the district court rounded some of the values in its decision letter, i.e., the $53,000 loan to $50,000 and the $89,000 contribution from Wife’s family to $90,000. However, neither party takes issue with the rounded numbers, so we will not further consider the matter. 11 which the husband received after the divorce trial but before the final decree was entered. In that case, the inherited property was not part of the marital estate and the wife was not entitled to any part of it. Id. [¶24] The case at bar is different from Storm. While Husband and Wife may have a “mere expectancy” of receiving title to the land upon which the house is built sometime in the future, they already invested other marital property in the house. The district court seemed to believe they might have some claim against the trust for the value of the improvement if the property is not deeded. We need not delve into any potential claims, however, as the district court’s decision focused on the contribution to the marital residence which came through Wife’s family. [¶25] Section 20-2-114(a) allows the district court to take into consideration “the party through whom the property was acquired” and the condition each party will be left in after the divorce when making a just and equitable property distribution. Wife and her mother both testified that the purpose of the discounted sale of the property to Husband and his associates was to provide Husband and Wife with a means of earning money to finance their own home. In Walters v. Walters, 2011 WY 41, ¶ 10, 249 P.3d 214, 222 (Wyo. 2011), we approved a property distribution which included an order that the wife was required to repay the husband for funds he expended from his own assets on marital property. Similarly, in this case, Wife is the party through whom the $89,000 was acquired, and the district court was justified in considering Wife’s contribution in its property division. [¶26] We agree with the district court’s finding that it really makes no difference whether the $89,000 contribution from Wife’s family was used directly to pay for the house construction or, as Husband testified, it was used for other needs, because that effectively freed other family income to be used on the house. The district court found that Wife cared for the children and home and “did not participate in the family business, so she knows little of the financial aspects of the family.” This finding is amply supported by the record. Wife testified that Husband provided her with money from either the Bagley Construction or Bagley Horseshoeing account each month to pay their bills, but she had no actual control over any other aspect of the family’s finances. With regard to the money from the sale of her parents’ land, Wife believed the money would be deposited in an account belonging to her and Husband to be used to finish the house, but it was, instead, deposited in the Bagley Construction account, over which she had no control. Wife testified she believed the parties owned the house and the evidence demonstrated that it was insured in their names. She understood that the land would eventually be deeded to Husband as part of his inheritance. However, when she asked Husband about the details of the transaction she was told to mind her own business. [¶27] In the end, Husband used the money from Wife’s family to invest in the house without taking any action to ensure their investment would be protected. Consequently, 12 it could be said he dissipated or wasted a marital asset. In Underkofler v. Underkofler, 834 P.2d 1140, 1141-42 (Wyo. 1992), we affirmed a property disposition which awarded most of the marital property to the wife because the husband had transferred marital property to others and spent the proceeds of a certificate of deposit. In making that ruling, this Court recognized that dissipation of marital assets may be accounted for by the court in a subsequent property division. Compare Dunham v. Dunham, 2006 WY 1, 125 P.3d 1015 (Wyo. 2006) (affirming the district court’s ruling that funds spent by husband prior to divorce did not have to be taken into account in property distribution because expenditures were not improper). The practical effect of the district court’s decision in this case was to do what the Underkofler court did—account for Husband’s investment of funds acquired through Wife in the house without protecting that asset. It did not equally split the “equity” in the house (which it determined was approximately $200,000), but instead, ordered a refund to Wife of the $89,000 acquired from her family, giving Husband the larger share of the equity. The district court’s decision properly accounted for the relative positions the parties would be left in after the divorce. Wife’s contribution will be refunded to her; Husband occupies a new log home and, if the property is deeded to him, he will receive that interest free of any claim by Wife. [¶28] Husband argues, nonetheless, that the district court abused its discretion by ordering him to pay Wife for the contribution because there are no marital assets to use to make the payment. In other words, he claims the court “divided” property which did not exist. We have, in other cases, approved cash awards to spouses despite the fact that there was insufficient cash in the marital estate to cover the judgment. 3 See, e.g., Boyle v. Boyle, 2006 WY 124, ¶¶ 21-23, 143 P.3d 368, 374 (Wyo. 2006); Humphrey v. Humphrey, 2007 WY 72, 157 P.3d 451 (Wyo. 2007). In such cases, the debtor spouse is often given a certain amount of time to satisfy the judgment. Here, the district court recognized that sufficient cash was not available but gave Wife a judgment against Husband and ordered that the judgment bear interest until paid in full. Husband does not have to immediately satisfy the judgment, but has an incentive to do so as soon as possible since interest is accruing on it. Like in Boyle, supra, Husband may have to explore options for satisfying the judgment such as securing a loan, etc. [¶29] Finally, Husband argues the district court effectively granted Wife an improper award of alimony. In Muller v. Muller, 838 P.2d 198, 199 (Wyo. 1992), we recognized that although alimony or spousal support is statutorily authorized, it generally is not favored. Section 20-2-114. It is preferable to account for the relative equities of the parties in the property distribution. See, e.g., Raymond v. Raymond, 956 P.2d 329, 334 (Wyo. 1998); Grosskopf v. Grosskopf, 677 P.2d 814, 821 (Wyo. 1984). The district court in this case specifically stated it was not awarding alimony but adjusting the equities 3 This is similar to § 20-2-307 which allows the court to impute income to an unemployed or underemployed parent in calculating child support, even though no such income exists. 13 between the parties with a property settlement. There was nothing improper about its decision. 2. Horseshoeing Business [¶30] Husband asserts the district court erred by valuing his horseshoeing business, Bagley Horseshoeing, at $40,000. The district court ruled: 18. [Husband] owns Bagley Horseshoeing. This business was built during the parties’ second marriage. The previous horseshoeing business was sold. Based on the assets in the business, the income earned, and the price of the previous sale of this type of business, the Court finds the value of this business to be $40,000. [Wife’s] equitable share is $20,000. [¶31] In accordance with our standard of review, Wife, as the prevailing party, is entitled to every favorable inference from the evidence and we do not give any consideration to inconsistent evidence presented by Husband, the unsuccessful party. Reavis, 955 P.2d at 431. Wife testified the assets of Husband’s horseshoeing business included a rather unique shoeing table which allowed horses to be laid down for shoeing. Husband stated that the business included other shoeing equipment, as well. Wife testified that Husband had sold a former shoeing business for approximately $20,000, and had negotiated to sell the current business several years before for an amount she “guessed” to be $40,000, although that sale apparently was not closed. [¶32] Husband claims the district court could not rely on Wife’s speculation to value the business. In Walters, ¶ 25, 249 P.3d at 229-30, we reversed a district court’s contempt award because the amount was not based on any evidence or measurable formula. This case is different. While Wife’s “guess” is not overwhelming evidence, it was based upon some history and, more importantly, was not contradicted in any way at trial by Husband. In fact, he does not direct us to any evidence he offered as to the value of the horseshoeing business. On this dismal record, we must defer to the district court’s findings. 4 4 Husband also complains about the district court’s valuation of some of the parties’ other personal property, stating: Husband “did not insist on having this property and should not be compelled to purchase it, particularly at prices he deems excessive.” The fact that he deems the prices excessive is irrelevant. He did not present evidence to counter Wife’s evidence on the values of much of the property. In fact, he states in his brief that he “did not offer many opinions about the value of the assets.” It is hard to understand how he could claim, on this record, that the district court erred by using Wife’s values, even if they were arguably subject to criticism. The district court had to somehow account for the values of the marital property in its decision. Furthermore, he does not offer cogent argument or pertinent authority to 14 3. Payment Schedule [¶33] Husband claims the district court erred by failing to provide an appropriate schedule of payments for the money judgment awarded to Wife. He cites Bailey v. Bailey, 954 P.2d 962 (Wyo. 1998), in support of his assertion. In Bailey, 954 P.2d at 966, this Court ruled the district court’s order that a large cash award to wife had to be paid within 180 days from the date of the judgment was unfair and an abuse of discretion. The Bailey decision is inapposite. In that case, we were concerned about the short time period the husband had to pay the wife in full. Here, there is no time period imposed—only the provision that the judgment will bear interest at 10% per annum until satisfied. The district court did not abuse its discretion. [¶34] Affirmed, as corrected, in part and reversed and remanded in part. support his bare assertions on appeal; consequently, we decline to further address the issue. See Sands v. Sands, 2013 WY 60, ¶ 2 n.1, 301 P.3d 128, 129 n.1 (Wyo. 2013). 15