Court Opinion

ID: 9536457
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 07:00:05.932236+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:54:31.063526
License: Public Domain

ROONEY, Retired Justice,
concurring.
The majority of the court has here blurred the distinction between “just and equitable disposition of the property of the parties” and “alimony." The holding that failure to abide by a property disposition is a sufficient change in circumstances to warrant a modification of an alimony award is too broad. W.S. 20-2-114 provides:
“In 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 *1181of 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. The court may decree to either party reasonable alimony out of the estate of the other having regard for the other’s ability and may order so much of the other’s real estate or the rents and profits thereof as is necessary be assigned and set out to either party for life, or may decree a specific sum be paid by either party.”
Obviously, whether a property settlement is just and equitable should be determined as of the date of the decree. Kane v. Kane, 577 P.2d 172 (Wyo.1978); Warren v. Warren, 361 P.2d 525 (Wyo.1961).
“As a general rule, a final judgment is conclusive both as to the relief granted and as to the relief denied or withheld, and on its entry the jurisdiction of the court over the subject matter and the parties is exhausted unless preserved in the mode authorized by statute. Hence, any further judgment or order materially varying the first judgment is a nullity, except as it is rendered pursuant to the power which the court may have in opening, modifying, or vacating its own judgments and in accord with the practice prescribed for the exercise of such power. This rule has been applied in divorce proceedings.”
24 Am.Jur.2d, Divorce and Separation, § 426 (1983).
The doctrine of res judicata is to the effect that a judgment decided upon the merits by a court with jurisdiction is conclusive of that cause of action and facts or issues litigated, both as to the parties and their privies in any other action in the same or different court of concurrent jurisdiction on the same issues. CLS v. CLJ, 693 P.2d 774 (Wyo.1985); Delgue v. Curutchet, 677 P.2d 208 (Wyo.1984).
By statute, Wyoming has authorized revision and alteration of a decree for alimony. W.S. 20-2-116 provides:
“After a decree for alimony or other allowance for a party or children and after a decree for the appointment of trustees to receive and hold any property for the use of a party or children, the court may from time to time, on the petition of either of the parties, revise and alter the decree respecting the amount of the alimony or allowance or the payment thereof and respecting the appropriation and payment of the principal and income of the property so held in trust and may make any decree respecting any of the matters which the court might have made in the original action.”
But the modification can be made only on the showing of changed circumstances from those at the time of the former decree. Salmeri v. Salmeri, 554 P.2d 1244 (Wyo.1976); Rubeling v. Rubeling, 406 P.2d 283 (Wyo.1965); Lonabaugh v. Lonabaugh, 46 Wyo. 23, 22 P.2d 199 (1933).
There is no statutory authority for modification of a divorce decree’s provision concerning property settlements. To use a failure to abide by a property settlement direction of the court through adjustment of alimony sidesteps the purposes of alimony and that of property settlements, and it is an improper extension of the exception to res judicata as provided by W.S. 20-2-116. Property settlement provisions of a divorce decree cannot be modified. Paul v. Paul, 631 P.2d 1060 (Wyo.1981); Pavlica v. Pavlica, 587 P.2d 639 (Wyo.1978). Transferring its obligations to alimony is a modification of its provisions. The failure to abide by the property settlement directions of a court should be corrected through contempt proceedings.
However, in this case, there are sufficient grounds for modifying the alimony provisions of the decree without any reference to or consideration of the property settlement. There has been a material change in the financial position of both parties. W.S. 20-2-116; Heyl v. Heyl, 518 P.2d 28 (Wyo.1974); Rubeling, 406 P.2d 283. The changes of circumstances warranting an increase in alimony in this case are: A necessary accumulated debt by de*1182fendant in securing her education; unanticipated home rental payments by defendant; plaintiffs marriage to a high income-producing person; and a change in the relative assets of the parties whereby the plaintiffs assets increased and the defendant’s assets decreased.