McMurry v. McMurry
2010 WY 163
Wyo.2010Background
- Husband filed for divorce; district court entered a Decree of Divorce December 9, 2009.
- Marital estate circa $18 million; court divided roughly equally and awarded Wife attorney’s fees.
- Significant assets traced to gifts from Husband’s father, including stock and overriding royalties on Jonah Field.
- Wife argued Husband intended to gift half his overriding royalty interests to her; trial court credited this finding.
- Evidence included an expert report projecting around $9,000,000 in care costs for Wife over roughly 28.5 years in Phoenix.
- Statutory framework under Wyoming law governs equitable distribution and allowance of attorney’s fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did court clearly err in finding gift of royalties to Wife? | McMurry asserts no clear gift intention. | McMurry contends district court properly found gift implied by facts. | No clear error; gift finding sustained. |
| Did erroneous gift finding affect equitable division factors? | Mischaracterization of assets skewed analysis of acquisition source. | Equitable division considers all assets regardless of source; court’s factor analysis remains valid. | No reversible impact on division analysis. |
| Was the 50/50 distribution of the estate an abuse of discretion? | Equitable division should reflect differing contributions; 50/50 is inappropriate here. | District court has broad discretion; 50/50 feasible given circumstances. | Not an abuse; 50/50 distribution not shockingly inequitable. |
| Did court abuse discretion by awarding Wife attorney's fees? | Wife did not need fees; award excessive. | Fees allowed under statute when necessary to defend or pursue action. | No abuse; fees properly awarded under statutory standard. |
Key Cases Cited
- Warren v. Warren, 361 P.2d 525 (Wy. 1961) (discretionary division; no hard rules; equal not required)
- Moss v. Moss, 156 P.3d 316 (Wy. 2007) (property division within district court’s discretion)
- Humphrey v. Humphrey, 157 P.3d 451 (Wy. 2007) (equitable vs. equal distributions; broad discretion)
- Barbour v. Barbour, 518 P.2d 12 (Wy. 1974) (considerations in property division)
- Kane v. Kane, 577 P.2d 172 (Wy. 1978) (review of division discretion)
- Breitenstine v. Breitenstine, 62 P.3d 587 (Wy. 2003) (factors in marital property division)
- Wallop v. Wallop, 88 P.3d 1022 (Wy. 2004) (property distribution framework)
- Weiss v. Weiss, 217 P.3d 408 (Wy. 2009) (attorney’s fees; prevailing party; lodestar approach)
- Black v. De Black, 1 P.3d 1244 (Wy. 2000) (reasonableness and necessity of attorney's fees; disclosure of expenses)
- Rocha v. Rocha, 925 P.2d 231 (Wy. 1996) (statutory authority for awarding attorney's fees)