Sheila Renee Mcadam
2014 WY 123
Wyo.2014Background
- Shelia and Douglas McAdam divorced by stipulated decree (May 2011) that required listing the marital residence for sale within 30 days, gave Husband exclusive possession pending sale, and made Husband responsible for mortgage payments until closing. The decree also awarded Wife half of Husband’s investment accounts and stock options and included an attorney-fees-for-default clause.
- Wife filed a show-cause (Jan 2012) alleging Husband failed to timely list the home and allowed flood damage; Husband counterclaimed that Wife blocked listing.
- The district court found both parties in contempt for failing to list/sell the home, ordered it listed "as is," and directed the parties to share equally any profit or loss; it denied fee awards at that time.
- After continued noncompliance, a second contempt proceeding (Sept 2013) again found both in contempt, required execution of listing paperwork within 30 days, ordered sale "as is," directed parties to share profits/losses, and — if the home wasn’t sold in 90 days — made Wife pay half the mortgage until sale.
- Wife also alleged Husband failed to transfer half of certain stock options/investment accounts; the court found Husband did not willfully violate the decree but ordered transfer/monetary distribution of vested amounts and denied attorney fees, finding Husband’s explanation credible.
Issues
| Issue | Wife's Argument | Husband's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did court improperly modify decree by ordering parties to share sale loss? | District court lacked authority; decree made Husband responsible for mortgage and possession pending sale. | Contempt enforcement allows remedial/punitive measures; court may order sharing of loss given mutual contempt. | Affirmed — court properly exercised contempt power; sharing loss was reasonable. |
| Did court improperly require Wife to pay half mortgage if home not sold? | Decree made Husband responsible; this was an impermissible modification. | Remedy for mutual contempt; fair given Wife found equally at fault. | Affirmed — ordering Wife to pay half going forward was within discretion. |
| Should Husband have been ordered to pay Wife’s attorney fees for failure to transfer investments/stock options? | Fees automatic under decree upon failure to perform; willfulness unnecessary. | Husband had a plausible explanation (employment change, account zeroed); court credited him. | Affirmed — court declined fees because Husband’s nonperformance was not willful and justification existed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Greene v. Finn, 153 P.3d 945 (Wyo. 2007) (standard for reviewing contempt in domestic cases)
- Meckem v. Carter, 323 P.3d 637 (Wyo. 2014) (district court’s broad contempt discretion)
- Shindell v. Shindell, 322 P.3d 1270 (Wyo. 2014) (elements and burden in civil contempt)
- Broadhead v. Broadhead, 737 P.2d 731 (Wyo. 1987) (property division finality principle)
- Barnett v. Barnett, 704 P.2d 1308 (Wyo. 1985) (circumstances permitting modification of property division)
- Paul v. Paul, 631 P.2d 1060 (Wyo. 1981) (same)
- Dorr v. Newman, 785 P.2d 1172 (Wyo. 1990) (continuing jurisdiction to enforce divorce decrees via contempt)
- Bowker v. Bowker, 795 P.2d 1215 (Wyo. 1990) (fee-shifting clause enforced where party failed to justify nonperformance)
- Olsen v. Olsen, 310 P.3d 888 (Wyo. 2013) (finder-of-fact resolves credibility and conflicting evidence)