Hillman v. Raymond
733 P.2d 605
Wyo.
1987
Check Treatment

*1 HILLMAN, Linda Irene (Defendant),

Appellant RAYMOND,

Roy Ellis (Plaintiff).

Appellee 86-208.

No. Supreme Court Moewes, Hunter Patrick and Denice E. 1987. Kitchen, Student Intern of Patrick & Pow- ell, appellant. for Rehearing April Denied

Stephen Bradley L. Simonton and C. Smith, Simonton, Cody, II of Simonton BROWN, C.J., THOMAS, Before MACY, URBIGKIT and JJ. BROWN, Chief Justice. appeal

This is an from the district court’s order Raymond Ellis contempt the terms of settle- entered into with for- wife, appellant mer Linda Irene Hillman. The trial court found that longer obligated new car following raises the appeal: [appellee], by

“A. his own volun- Can actions, subse- tary cause occur, thereby discharging quent to Proper- Paragraph 9 of the duties under ty Agreement? Settlement to con- “B. error for the Court Was it loosely instead of strue the condition thereby allowing [appellee] to Proper- Paragraph 9 of the released from ty Agreement? Settlement judge to error for the trial “C. Was it [appel- proof on the put the burden of lant]?” reverse. divorced and a decree Incorporated on October a settlement into the divorce decree was agreement At in this case *2 606 Paragraph agree-

is of the charging 9 (appellee’s) obligation his under ment which reads: agreement the settlement supply appel- to lant with a new car each In “Roy provide appel- [appellee] agrees to Linda issue, lant’s second she asks

[appellant] adequate transportation whether the with being construing trial court erred generally in year paragraph a new car each 9 long loosely as as in instead of allowing continues the automo- * * * ” appellee to bile business. be released from obligation. “A subsequent condition any the fact married, joint While the which, existence or by occurrence of dealerships, owners of two automobile one agreement parties, operates to dis- in Wyoming, located and the other charge duty of performance after it Cody, Wyoming. in located Pursuant to * ** ” has become absolute. Calamari agreement, the settlement appellee exe- Perillo, Contracts, 11-5, The Law of § promissory agreeing cuted a pay note to p. 385 per partial pay- $900 month as joint by appellant the interest held Anderson, In Wyo., Kindler v. 433 P.2d dealerships. Additionally, in appellee 268, (1967), 270-271 we stated: agreed provide appellant to with a new car subsequent “Conditions are not favored year long each “for as Roy [appellee] as and are to strictly law be con- continues in the automobile business.” strued. Carey J.M. City & Brother v. August Casper, Wyo. 437, 263, The evidence indicated that on 19, 1980, appellee course, sold the conditions, Powell dealer- any Of like [1950]. ship, 21, 1980, August and on appellee provision contract, sold of a be to 9, On interpreted as the must have un- 1980, appellee “Exchange derstood conditions at the time. The Agreement” with A. William Workman and true intention of the will control Workman, whereby wife Melva and that is to be ascertained from the agreed exchange Workmans to all stock language whole, writing used in the aas by dealership owned them in an Idaho for a looking necessary if at the situation of to property deed the real held appellee parties, matter, subject and the provid- Powell. The purpose Pacific-Wyoming to served. closing ed of the transfer of stock Co., Wyo. Oil Co. v. Carter Oil place days take ten approval after 193, 197, rehearing 226 P. denied 31 given by Company. Ap- Ford Motor Wyo. 228 P. 284.” actually pellee acquire testified he did not also, Sowerwine, See Stockton v. Wyo., dealership stock the Idaho until Decem- (1984). However, 690 P.2d 1202 we think a ber more accurate in- assessment of the issue appellee The trial court held that was not is simply volved here whether the trial engaged in the automobile business for long- court erred in nowas those three and one-half months from the obligated er supply appellant to with a new dealership time he sold the Powell on Au- annually car since found that 21,1980 gust 4,1980, until December appellee had not continued in the automo- he actually acquired stock in the Idaho bile business. dealership. Consequently, the trial court provi- appellee's obligation held that to agreed at sion issue here was that year car with new to a new car each “ ** * the settlement ap- ceased when [appellee] for as as con- pellee Wyoming dealerships. sold the tinues in the automobile business.” At the made, appellee appellant’s consider together. issue, appellant dealerships In her As first asks two and Powell. earlier, dealerships voluntarily whether can noted sold the cause a subsequent August to occur thereby dis- 19 and 1980. Some nineteen J., dissenting later, filed exchange opinion. dealership. While the Idaho stock obtain CARDINE, Justice, dissenting. actually did true that any in the Idaho stock I dissent. obtain *3 he entered December until I have the district court would affirmed selling the days after only 19 opin- above case. The its decision acknowledges ion of the that how dis- to see are unable We not in the “automobile business” for being in the automobile business continued that, although not in but concludes of the settlement purposes business, doing he did cease business. dealership and en- Cody he sold the when help period I what of cannot but wonder to obtain another tered hold time be sufficient to that he had would Furthermore, days. within doing six business. Would it be ceased entering into testified that before months, years? year, a or ten At least of exchange agreement being in the agreed that ceased repre- Company a Motor he and Ford “automobile business” to look at the deal- went to Idaho sentative Wyoming, which were the automobile busi- July, Appellee also exam- ership in contemplation par- nesses within the sign- statements before ined the financial they their made ties agreement of ing the question me the was the intent For real appellee looked at is also noted that It at the pos- of prospect of dealerships with Therefore, court heard the testi- made. trial purchase in 1978. we

sible witnesses, mony, that discontin- evaluated to determine observed unable busi- credibility, question his involvement automobile this ued and resolved their ness, entitling reason, him to terminate this I of For in favor a new obligation affirm. car each a

If the of contract

clear, than the we need look contract to determine

four corners Guynn, parties. intent of the Holst v. (1985); v. and Rouse

Wyo., It

Munroe, Wyo., P.2d 74 clear that the intended seems INC., MGTC, Wyoming corporation, give a new car so (Plaintiff), in the automobile business. as he continued intended to make If solely provision contingent UTILITIES, INC., Wyo NORTHERN continuing in appellee’s the automo upon ming corporation, Gas and Northern Powell, they Cody and bile business corporation, Ap Company, Wyoming they did expressly have stated so as could (Defendants). pellees agree provisions of the settlement in other ap- to conclude that ment. We are unable No. 86-244. his automobile business pellee discontinued Supreme Court dealership and by disposing of one merely acquiring another. holding unnecessary to ad- makes it Our regarding bur- appellant’s last

dress proof.

den

Reversed.