Thomas P. Campbell v. Tammie J. Hein, F/N/A Tammie J. Campbell
311 P.3d 165
Wyo.2013Background
- Husband and Wife divorced in 2008 by stipulated Property Settlement and Debt Summary allocating over $267,000 of marital debt; decree incorporated the Agreement.
- Debt allocation assigned Husband portions of two loans described as from Wife’s parents (balances $30,000 and $25,688) and assigned Wife a $12,118 debt she said was from her sister.
- In 2010 Husband filed to reopen the divorce decree under W.R.C.P. 60(b) and Wyo. Stat. § 1-16-401, alleging Wife misrepresented material facts about the family loans and thus procured an unfair debt allocation.
- At the 2012 evidentiary hearing Husband alleged (1) the parental loans were fabricated and (2) the $12,118 “sister” loan was actually a gift from Wife’s then-boyfriend (now husband).
- Evidence: Husband admitted general awareness of family loans but disputed specifics; Wife produced wire transfer and check records and family testimony supporting the parental loans; Wife conceded misidentifying the source of the $12,118 but testified the funds were a loan from David Hein used to pay marital debt and later repaid.
- The district court denied relief, finding disputed parental-loan evidence insufficient to show fabrication and that misidentifying the sister as lender (when funds were a loan from Hein) did not justify reopening the decree.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the decree should be reopened because Wife fabricated loans from her parents | Campbell: Wife fabricated the two parental loans; clear and convincing evidence of fraud justifies reopening | Hein: Documentary and testimonial evidence show parental loans existed; Husband failed to prove fabrication by clear and convincing evidence | Denied — court found the record supported existence of parental loans and Husband did not meet the high fraud standard |
| Whether the decree should be reopened because Wife misrepresented the source of a $12,118 loan (sister vs. boyfriend) | Campbell: Wife’s misrepresentation caused an unfair allocation because the $12,118 was actually a gift from Hein and not a loan from Wife’s sister | Hein: Wife admitted misstating the source but the funds were a loan used to pay marital debt and were repaid; misidentification did not make the overall allocation mistaken or unjust | Denied — although Wife misidentified the source, evidence showed the funds were a loan used for marital debt and did not warrant reopening |
Key Cases Cited
- Painovich v. Painovich, 216 P.3d 501 (Wyo. 2009) (rule 60(b) relief for fraud/misrepresentation requires clear and convincing proof and is reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Harshfield v. Harshfield, 842 P.2d 535 (Wyo. 1992) (W.R.C.P. 60(b) and W.S. 1-16-401 permit reopening judgments for fraud, mistake, inadvertence or irregularity in limited circumstances)
- In re Injury to Seevers, 720 P.2d 899 (Wyo. 1986) (movant bears burden to substantiate Rule 60(b) claims with adequate proof)
- Jacoby v. Jacoby, 100 P.3d 852 (Wyo. 2004) (abuse of discretion standard described as decision exceeding bounds of reason)
- Jensen v. Milatzo-Jensen, 297 P.3d 768 (Wyo. 2013) (appellate review affords every favorable inference to the prevailing party and omits conflicting evidence)