Opinion ID: 6496578
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: facts

Text: [¶3] The parties were married on September 5, 1992, in Scarborough, Maine, and they have three adult children. For the first twenty years of their marriage, the parties resided primarily in France, but they also spent time at a residence they purchased in 2008 in Scarborough, Maine. In 2012, the parties moved to Jackson, Wyoming, and purchased a home in 2015. The parties also purchased an apartment in Paris, France, in 2018. Although the apartment was purchased with proceeds generated from the sale of jointly owned property, Husband unilaterally placed the apartment under the ownership of a French corporation named SCI Les Triples.1 Husband and the parties’ three adult children own interests in the SCI. [¶4] The parties separated on May 8, 2019. After the separation, Husband moved back to France and resided in the Paris apartment. Wife filed for divorce on August 2, 2019, in Teton County, Wyoming. On November 19, 2019, Husband filed a motion to dismiss the complaint alleging he had not been properly served. Wife asked for additional time to accomplish proper service. The district court granted Wife an additional sixty days to serve 1 SCI stands for Société Civile Immobilière, which is a type of French corporation used to circumvent France’s default heirship rules and inheritance tax. Jean-Marc Tirard, The French Perspective, 19 Int’l L. Practicum 142, 148–49 (Autumn 2006). 1 Husband. Wife took steps to serve husband in accordance with the French Civil Code and the Hague Convention. [¶5] On April 2, 2020, Husband filed a second motion to dismiss the complaint, arguing he still had not been properly served. This motion also asked the district court to dismiss the action on the grounds of forum non conveniens. Husband alleged France was the more appropriate forum because the parties executed a contract in France in 2018, called a “matrimonial property regime,” whereby they agreed to utilize French law in matters of property distribution.2 Husband alleged the case would proceed more efficiently in France because there would be fewer errors due to faulty translation or misinterpretation of French law. Husband indicated he had initiated a divorce proceeding in France on February 6, 2020, and a hearing was set in that case on May 27, 2020. [¶6] In her response to the second motion to dismiss, Wife asserted she had properly served Husband. She set forth a detailed analysis of why Wyoming was a more convenient forum than France. She alleged the parties had significant contacts with Wyoming, and the case should remain in her chosen forum. Although she acknowledged the parties signed the matrimonial property regime agreement in France, she asserted the document did not have to be interpreted or enforced by a French court. [¶7] The district court denied the second motion to dismiss in part, finding service was properly accomplished under French law and the Hague Convention. The district court reserved ruling on the inconvenient forum portion of the motion and set a status conference to discuss the French divorce case. At the status conference, the parties informed the district court the hearing in the French divorce action had been postponed until November or December 2020. The district court requested additional briefing on the effect of the matrimonial property regime agreement. [¶8] On August 17, 2020, the district court denied Husband’s motion to dismiss and concluded the matrimonial property regime agreement did not contain a forum selection clause, Wyoming courts were capable of applying French law, and the case should remain in Wife’s chosen forum. Husband appealed the district court’s order, but his appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.3 [¶9] The parties agreed to mediation. The mediation date was changed multiple times because Husband retained new counsel and claimed Wife had not disclosed key financial information about her interest in her family’s trusts. The mediation was held on February 2 Although the matrimonial property regime agreement was executed in 2018, it stated it was intended to be retroactive to September 5, 1992. Throughout the record, the parties were inconsistent with how they characterized this document. Sometimes it was referred to as prenuptial or an antenuptial agreement and other times it was referred to as a postnuptial agreement. For the sake of clarity, we will refer to it as the matrimonial property regime agreement. 3 Pellet v. Pellet, S-20-205 (Wyo. Oct. 19, 2020) (order dismissing appeal). 2 17–19, 2021, and, after a two-and-a half-day mediation, the parties executed the MSA, which was signed by both parties and their respective attorneys, on February 19, 2021. The MSA stated: This Agreement resolves all outstanding issues in the civil case pending in the Ninth District Court of Fremont [sic] County as Civil No. 18043. The terms of this Agreement are binding on Nini and Benoit. Both parties recognize the terms of this Agreement are enforceable under W.R.C.P. 40. Both parties were represented by legal counsel and had enough time to consider all terms, consult with their respective attorneys about all terms, and enter into the Agreement freely and voluntarily. The MSA was executed as “a full, final and binding settlement agreement.” [¶10] The MSA divided the parties’ real property specifying Husband “shall receive” the apartment in Paris, France, and Wife “shall receive” the Maine and Wyoming residences. The MSA also divided the parties’ personal property, bank accounts, investment accounts, and airline miles. Because Wife received two pieces of real property, she was required to make a substantial cash equalization payment to Husband. The MSA declared each party would be “solely responsible for taxes, including capital gain taxes, related to the assets awarded to him and her[.]” The MSA allowed Husband to reside in the Maine residence until October 2021, except for the last two weeks of July and the first two weeks of August. [¶11] Wife’s attorney was assigned to prepare a final marital settlement agreement incorporating the terms of the MSA. However, the MSA stated if the parties could not agree on a final form for the agreement within thirty days, “this document shall serve as the Agreement of the parties and may 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.” [¶12] Shortly after the mediation, Husband contacted Wife claiming the Paris apartment portion of the MSA had “enormous problems” under French law. He asserted the Paris apartment could not be transferred to him as his separate property without the consent of the parties’ adult children, and the children had informed him they would not consent to the transfer or sale of the apartment. He also alleged he would incur unanticipated tax consequences if the Paris apartment was sold. Because of these alleged problems, Husband refused to sign a final settlement agreement or a stipulated divorce decree. 3 [¶13] On April 6, 2021, Wife asked the district court to enter a decree of divorce that divided the parties’ marital property in accordance with the MSA.4 She informed the district court the parties were unable to agree on the final form of a settlement agreement or a stipulated decree. Wife asserted Husband was attempting to void the MSA by contacting the parties’ adult children after the mediation and instructing them to withhold their consent to the transfer or sale of the Paris apartment. Wife asked the district court to enforce the MSA and enter a decree of divorce that incorporated its terms. [¶14] On April 20, 2021, Husband asked the district court to vacate the MSA and find it was void due to mutual mistake, fraud, impracticability, or commercial frustration.5 Husband alleged Wife misrepresented during mediation the children would consent to the transfer of the Paris Apartment, and he relied on this representation when he signed the MSA. He asserted there was no meeting of the minds because of this misrepresentation, and the MSA was unenforceable. Husband requested an evidentiary hearing on his motion. [¶15] In response, Wife admitted she spoke with one of the children during the mediation, and based on that conversation, she represented there was support for Husband having the exclusive use of and rights over the Paris apartment. She argued Husband was precluded from asserting mutual mistake, impracticability, or commercial frustration to void the MSA because he instructed the children to refuse their consent. Wife alleged Husband made incorrect statements about the ownership structure of the SCI, and he had “misrepresent[ed] the rights and ownership of the Paris apartment.” She explained an SCI is very similar to a limited liability company, except an SCI distinguishes between current interest owners and future interest owners. When Husband created the SCI, he elected to identify himself as the sole current interest owner and their adult children as the future interest owners. Wife asserted Husband had the exclusive use of and management authority over the assets of the SCI because he was the managing member and sole current interest owner. She argued he had the exclusive right to live in the Paris apartment, and he could sell it and apply the proceeds to the purchase of other real estate. Should he do so, he would then be entitled to occupy, rent, sell, or trade that real estate for other assets. Accordingly, Wife asked the district court to grant the divorce and enforce the MSA. [¶16] On July 1, 2021, Wife filed an emergency motion indicating Husband refused to vacate the Maine residence for the last two weeks of July and first two weeks of August, as he was obligated to do under the MSA. She asked the district court to enter an emergency order enforcing this portion of the MSA. The district court set an emergency hearing on this motion for July 14, 2021. 4 This pleading was not verified. However, on May 27, 2021, Wife filed an affidavit wherein she stated: “Prior to filing, I reviewed the Motion for Judgment of Divorce filed on April 6, 2021. I verify, under oath, that all statements in the Motion are true and accurate to the best of my knowledge.” 5 Although this pleading was captioned as a verified motion, the verification page was blank. A signed verification page was not submitted until May 5, 2021. 4 [¶17] On July 13, 2021, Husband filed a motion for sanctions alleging Wife failed to disclose her interests in her family’s trusts. He renewed his allegations about Wife’s fraudulent misrepresentation concerning the children’s consent. He argued Wife should be sanctioned for this conduct, and the MSA should be set aside. He again requested an evidentiary hearing. [¶18] The district court held a hearing on the emergency motion to enforce the MSA on July 14, 2021.6 The next day, the district court entered its Order on Motions to Enforce, For Entry of Decree, and to Vacate Settlement. That order indicated the district court ruled from the bench on the emergency motion. The district court found it had inherent authority to enforce settlement agreements, and it further found: “In this case, the parties did settle out of court, with legal advice. Their settlement is evidenced by the written Settlement Agreement, signed by both parties and their counsel.” The district court determined Husband had ample notice of his obligation to vacate the Maine residence for the fourweek period, and he had not cited any legal basis for not enforcing this portion of the MSA either in his briefing or at the hearing. The district court granted the emergency motion and ordered Husband to vacate the Maine residence for the four-week period. [¶19] The district court then addressed the motions to enforce or vacate the MSA without a hearing. It found “pursuant to W.R.C.P. 6 that no hearing [was] required on these two motions.” The district court held: 18. Husband asserts, after signing the Settlement Agreement, that he learned later that if he sold the Paris apartment, he would face tax liabilities. He asserts this is a basis to set the Settlement Agreement aside, on the basis of no meeting of the minds, mutual mistake or fraud. He also asserts that due to the ownership structure for that apartment, the tax consequences would impact the parties’ adult children and that the children did not consent to the sale. The parties also contest whether the sale of the Paris apartment is proper under French law and under the parties’ French marriage contract. Husband asserts it is not. Wife asserts these issues were resolved in consultation with French legal counsel throughout the 2-1/2 day mediation. Each party nevertheless provides a lengthy legal memorandum from French counsel on this issue. 6 It appears this hearing was not reported because no transcript of this hearing appears in the record. The parties did not submit a statement of the evidence pursuant to W.R.A.P. 3.03. The only information regarding this hearing comes from the district court’s order, which states: “Each party presented testimony at the July 14 hearing. The testimony was largely based in equity, i.e., whether it [was] fair to require Husband to move out for four weeks.” 5 19. As noted previously, the Settlement Agreement does not contemplate the sale of the Paris apartment. The legal memoranda and apparent dispute center around that potential sale. This is an issue outside the four corners of the contract, requiring parole [sic] evidence where no ambiguity exists within the contract. 20. The Court can appreciate the dispute between the parties but finds the procedural posture of the dispute is not ripe for review. The Court finds it appropriate to enter the Settlement Agreement without an adjudication of the lengthy and detailed allegations raised by the parties at this time. 21. The Court has reviewed the Settlement Agreement. It is not ambiguous. As an unambiguous contract, the Court is limited to the four-corners of that agreement. The agreement does not indicate or suggest a sale of the Paris apartment or that performance of the Agreement is contingent on that sale or any other event. According to the Agreement, the Paris apartment is Husband’s and any tax liability for his property is his. 22. After reviewing the lengthy briefing and attachments for both motions, the Court finds and concludes that the decree should be entered, incorporating the Settlement Agreement. The motion to vacate should be denied. This conclusion is consistent with the strong policy in Wyoming to enforce settlement agreements. This principle is true in the family law context as it is in any other civil case. 23. “Spouses may define their obligations to one another in a written agreement.” Lipps v. Lloyd, 967 P.2d 558, 560 (Wyo. 1998) (citing David v. David, 724 P.2d 1141, 1143 (Wyo. 1986)). “Property settlement agreements entered into by the parties prior to a divorce action are generally recognized and given force and effect in the decree.” Prentice v. Prentice, 568 P.2d 883, 886 (Wyo. 1977); Lipps, 967 P.2d at 560-561 (courts favor property settlements); Rinehart v. Rinehart, 52 Wyo. 363, 75 P.2d 390, 391-392 (1938). 24. A property settlement agreement is regarded as a contract, even though it is adopted in the decree, and contract law principles apply. Prentice, 568 P.2d at 886 (citing Ulrich v. Ulrich, 366 P.2d 999, 1002 (Wyo. 1961)). Where the parties 6 have entered into a property settlement agreement, courts are to “enforce the plain language of the agreement even if an argument can be made that a particular provision of the agreement is not necessarily consistent with one of the parties’ [sic] interests.” Asherman v. Asherman, 2009 WY 141, ¶ 11, 221 P.3d 302, 305 (Wyo. 2009). 25. This conclusion is also consistent with Paragraph 10 of the parties’ Settlement Agreement which provides, in sum, that the Agreement is self executing after thirty days. That thirty-day period expired. The district court denied Husband’s motion to vacate the MSA and stated a decree of divorce would be entered by a separate order. The district court found Husband’s motion for sanctions was moot. The district court entered the Decree of Divorce, which incorporated the terms of the MSA. This appeal timely followed.