Rosendahl v. Rosendahl
267 P.3d 557
Wyo.2011Background
- Husband, Gerry L. Rosendahl, appeals a divorce decree allocating assets, debts, and fees.
- Wife brought children from another relationship; Husband did not adopt them; no child between parties.
- Premarital home in Kemmerer valued at $172,000 with about $123,300 mortgage; Wife’s premarital equity was awarded to Wife.
- Mortgage debt refinanced in 2006; refinance largely financed Husband's expenses when he was unemployed.
- Divorce decree (Oct 26, 2010) required Husband to pay $45,000 of mortgage debt, pay one-half of orthodontia and Wife’s attorney’s fees; decree entered following trial and post-trial proceedings.
- Husband challenged the property division, attorney’s fees award, and one-half orthodontia payment; Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion in property and debt distribution | Rosendahl asserts improper division and unfair burdens. | Rosendahl argues the court’s discretion was proper given merits and contributions. | No abuse; division reasonable and within discretion. |
| Whether the award of attorney's fees to Wife was improper | Rosendahl contends the award lacks support in the record. | Rosendahl contends the award was appropriate under the record. | Affirmed; discretionary and supported by evidence, record incomplete for review here. |
| Whether ordering Husband to pay half of orthodontia for Wife's children is supported | Rosendahl objects to allocation of orthodontia costs. | Rosendahl accepts the court’s equitable allocation. | Within district court's discretion; affirmed. |
| Whether final Judgment and Decree of Divorce was properly entered | Rosendahl challenges Rule 58-type procedures. | Wife argues proper procedure under applicable Wyoming rules and case law. | Proper; not governed by Rule 58 in this context. |
| Whether post-judgment motion required a hearing | Rosendahl asserts hearing was needed on post-judgment motion. | Wife argues no hearing required under Rule 6(c)(2). | No hearing required; motion deemed denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Olsen v. Olsen, 247 P.3d 77 (Wyoming 2011) (standard of review for division of marital property; abuse of discretion when disposition shocks conscience)
- Sweat v. Sweat, 72 P.3d 276 (Wyoming 2003) (abuse of discretion standard; favorable inferences for prevailing party)
- Seherr-Thoss v. Seherr-Thoss, 141 P.3d 705 (Wyoming 2006) (attorney's fees order requires complete record for review)
- Zaloudek v. Zaloudek, 220 P.3d 498 (Wyoming 2009) (Rule 58 procedures not applicable where not announcing decision at trial)
- Hoffman v. Hoffman, 91 P.3d 922 (Wyoming 2004) (sanctions standard not met where appeal lacked merit)