402 P.3d 405
Wyo.2017Background
- Parties divorced by stipulated decree (Aug 17, 2015); Husband awarded the marital home and ordered to pay Wife $50,000 for her equity and to be responsible for mortgage/expenses and to refinance or sell.
- Wife was permitted to remain in the home until certain equity payments or court orders; deadlines in the decree and a subsequent contempt order were central.
- First contempt proceeding (May 25, 2016): court found Husband in contempt for failing to sell/refinance and pay $50,000; ordered sale/refinance within 90 days or 10% interest and required Wife to vacate within 45 days of that order. Wife not held in contempt. No appeal from that order.
- Second round of contempt actions (late 2016): Husband alleged Wife damaged the home and delayed sale; Wife alleged Husband failed to pay the equity, failed mortgage payments, and failed to return a computer. Hearing held Dec 9, 2016; written order Dec 29, 2016.
- District court again found Husband in contempt, entered judgment for Wife for $47,269.78 (including $34,983.84 for unpaid equity and $1,500 for a computer). Husband appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Husband's Argument | Wife's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Damage to marital home | Wife caused physical damage and should be held in contempt | Evidence insufficient to prove Wife willfully damaged home | Court affirmed: Husband failed to prove when/who caused damage or repair cost; no contempt for Wife |
| Delay of sale / possession issues | Wife delayed sale by denying realtor access and late key delivery | Wife vacated within 45 days; no specific order governed key delivery or access; no proven harm | Court affirmed: Wife vacated on time; no clear order required realtor access; two-day key delay caused no harm |
| Interest / contempt for missed 90‑day deadline | Husband sold after regaining possession and paid some proceeds; 90 days was unreasonable to require sale; interest should be applied only to unpaid balance after $20,016.16 | First contempt order required sale/refinance and payment within 90 days; Husband missed that deadline and did not appeal that order | Court affirmed: Husband missed the 90‑day deadline (deadline counted from order entry); interest award appropriate; new argument about pro rata interest not raised below and is waived |
| Exclusion/valuation evidence (computer, financial inability defense) | Court improperly excluded evidence (valuation estimate; financial records) and failed to credit inability to pay | Wife presented valuation; Husband presented no admissible evidence of value or of inability to comply | Court affirmed: excluded hearsay estimate; court’s $1,500 valuation was reasonable; Husband failed to prove inability to comply with order or provide admissible financial evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Roberts v. Locke, 304 P.3d 116 (Wyo. 2013) (standard for reviewing domestic civil contempt decisions)
- Kleinpeter v. Kleinpeter, 397 P.3d 189 (Wyo. 2017) (elements of civil contempt; clear-and-convincing standard)
- McAdam v. McAdam, 335 P.3d 466 (Wyo. 2014) (clear-and-convincing evidence required for civil contempt)
- JLK v. MAB, 375 P.3d 1108 (Wyo. 2016) (burden shifts to alleged contemnor to prove inability to comply)
- Secrest v. Secrest, 781 P.2d 1339 (Wyo. 1989) (inability to comply is defense to contempt)
- Cook v. Swires, 202 P.3d 397 (Wyo. 2009) (failure to timely appeal bars relitigation of issues from that order)
- Crofts v. State ex rel. Dep’t of Game & Fish, 367 P.3d 619 (Wyo. 2016) (appellate review disfavors new issues raised for first time on appeal)
- Greer v. Greer, 391 P.3d 1127 (Wyo. 2017) (appellate courts may decline to consider inadequately briefed issues)
- Halling v. Yovanovich, 391 P.3d 611 (Wyo. 2017) (discussion of interest/annual percentage rate concepts)