Spitzer v. Spitzer

SPITZER, Appellant Harold

(Defendant),

v. SPITZER, Marie Ann (Plaintiff). Appellee 87-123. No. Laird, Dallas J. Neilson and J. Clifford Wyoming. Supreme Court appellant. Casper, for 3, 1989. July Barksdale, Clapp Larry Clapp R.

P.C., Casper, appellee. C.J., BROWN,*

Before THOMAS, CARDINE,** URBIGKIT MACY, JJ.

MACY, Justice. appeal from a divorce decree

This is an as a default and which entered general property and a awarded hearing. Appeal is settlement without pro tunc order also taken from a nunc amending decree. the divorce We reverse. the fol-

Appellant Harold raises lowing issues: Spitzer, who stands 1. Whether Mr. court, standing contempt the district present an the facts of this case under Court; appeal to this district it error for the 2. Whether was in- its divorce decree which court to enter the divorce com- matters outside cluded conducting evidentiary plaint without otherwise, con- hearing, by affidavit or Ann by appellee allegations made sider the complaint; her Marie error for 3. Whether was court to include a $600,000 as making payment of decree obligation of Mr. alimony the and for executor, trustee, or successor zer and his death; and after his district error for the 4. it was Whether by its its divorce court to amend pro tunc order with- nunc March Spitzer. notice to Mr. a motion or ** June 1988. argument; Became Chief Justice retired Justice at time of oral Chief June Compel, Sanctions, appellee Spit- Ann “Motion to Motion for approach The Marie jurisdic- question Attorney’s of this and Motion for Fees.” zer to the Court’s appeal, Spit- Mr. tion to hear this raised 26, 1987, January On the district court issue, different. zer in his first is somewhat Spitzer’s conducted a on all of Ms. being: phrases the She issue Spitzer’s motions and on Mr. motion to appeal be taken 1. Whether 3, 1987, quash. February On without there from default Judgment” court entered an “Order and for relief un- having a motion first been granting all of Ms. motions and 60(b), 55(c) W.R.C.P. der and Rule[s] denying quash. the motion to This order 10, 1986, Spitzer judgment provided pertinent part: in Ms. filed and On November marriage praying that her Spitzer’s] 1. That Motion to [Ms. dissolved, Spitzer Mr. Sanctions, Compel, Motion for and Mo- debts, and equitably divide their assets be, Attorney’s tion for Fees shall and granted support the action she while hereby is, granted. Spitzer] shall [Mr. grant the court pending, was and that such (10) days have ten the date from just relief as it deemed other and further Court’s the within Order and Spitzer requested proper. Ms. also and Judgment produce in which to the doc- temporary restraining and received a order requested Spitzer’s] uments in [Ms. prohibiting Spitzer disposing Mr. Request First Production Doc- for encumbering par- various assets of the uments, which, failing, Spitzer] in [Mr. during pendency ties of the divorce default, shall be deemed in and [Ms. action. Spitzer] granted shall then be her di- vorce, Spitzer] and shall retain Spitzer [Ms. Mr. answered and counterclaimed any prop- and all assets she deems are Spitzer request- for divorce. Whereas Ms. erly Spitzer] Judg- shall hers. [Ms. equitable prop- ed an of the marital division against Spitzer], ment erty, Spitzer requested proper- [Mr. [Mr. Mr. Spitzer] pay shall the sum of zer] [Ms. ty division be determined in relation to the as and for costs associated with $125.00 property party brought and assets each deposition Spitzer], which [Mr. marriage. into the also Spitzer moved 22, 1987, January was scheduled for quash restraining order. attend, Spitzer] did not which speculative, somewhat which, amount for let execution issue. strongly Spitzer record indicates that Mr. appropriated property then all the added.) (Emphasis parties any liquidity had which moved again respond, Spitzer jurisdiction. 17, 1987, February Spitzer on Ms. filed an January Spitzer “Application Judgment.”

On Ms. filed a for Default The deposition notice of she which demanded district court made its of default on Spitzer produce February that Mr. certain items and that same Also on day. relating parties’ documents to the mutual district court entered the divorce decree as properties. granted assets and also filed a a default The She decree compel, seeking Spitzer provided motion to enforce- Ms. a divorce and deposition. ment of this notice of The mo- division and an award. compel because, prior requested Spitzer] tion to The decree noted that was “[Mr. time, Spitzer willfully, intentionally, just to that Ms. had served Mr. and without Spitzer Request Judgment with a “First for Produc- cause violated the Order and February tion of thereby Documents” to which he had failed filed herein on respond. mandating deposition scheduled this Decree of Divorce and was January Spitzer Judgment entered default.” The appear deposition furnish, Spitzer at the nor did he decree Ms. certain awarded real form, personal property, apparently various items and doc- consist- Spitzer requested. prior uments Ms. had As a ent with the order result, Spitzer Ms. then filed a combined and that she would retain such Tunc,” original properly deemed to be amended the decree property as she alimony, by adding specificity hers. to certain of the prop- With provided pay was to erty descriptions by awarding that Mr. addition- $600,000 monthly installments al real to Ms. which had $5,000 Spitzer’s obligation to and that Mr. original been included pay upon the of Ms. terminate death appeal perfected. would decree. This then was provided, Spitzer. further how- The decree ever, obligation “will be JURISDICTION Spitzer], Spit- obligation of [Mr. [Mr. Spitzer jurisdiction Ms. that no contends trustee, executor, or successor after zer’s] Spitzer appeal lies for this because Mr. Spitzer’s] death.” at the initially seek relief district filed Spitzer thereafter three motions level from the decree of divorce judgment. Two of the mo- to amend the upon In sup- which was entered default. certain the tions asserted that port argument, Spitzer of her Ms. directs Spitzer belong to Mr. awarded Ms. Wyoming this Court the cases of Insur- owned Spitzer by instead were his son but Department ance v. Sierra Insur- Life daughter and should excluded from (Wyo.1979), Company, ance 599 P.2d 1360 motions the decree. These were denied. and Robison v. and Use Tax Divi- Sales grant did the mo- The district court other sion, Commission, 524 P.2d State Tax change requested tion which in the de- (Wyo.1974), hold which she believes that a marriage the correct date cree to reflect judgment appealed may default not be until parties. for the complaining party has first moved the Spitzer Ms. filed nu- On March judgment pursuant set aside the W.R. single motions contained within a merous 55(c) 60(b).1 C.P. in Included that document was document. question We do not these cases contempt alleging for that Mr. motion by proposition for the asserted stand Ms. Spitzer directly intentionally had violat- however, note, Spitzer. We that Mr. restraining original ed the order and contesting respecting facts zer is not the by converting improperly property included liability by his the as established failing by in to make those orders following respect, In the default. lan- hearing, alimony payments. After a the Moore, Lucas, guage in 9 J. B. Ward & J. granting order district court entered its at Moore’s Practice 11203.06 3-27 Federal Spitzer’s contempt or- motion for (2d 1989), pertinent: 3-28 becomes ed. dered that a warrant be issued for bench party In who practice federal suffers $300,- the arrest of Mr. and that a judgment in effect confesses by default posted his in cash bond be for release respecting truth the facts the the pursuant the event he was incarcerated except that in their claim na- post judg- that bench warrant. Additional for facts require details, ture an examination entry, ment activities are reflected as, counsel, example, damages the amount upon application of Ms. unliquidated. If he styled orders Pro when claim is several “Order Nunc (2) 55(c) gleet; newly provides: discovered evidence which 1. W.R.C.P. diligence have been due could not discovered Setting good aside cause default. —For trial under in time to move for a new 59(b); (3) Rule may entry of shown the court set aside an (whether fraud heretofore denom- and, judgment by if a has been default default extrinsic), misrepresenta- inated intrinsic or entered likewise set it aside in accord- tion, party; or misconduct of an adverse other 60(b). ance with Rule void; (5) (4) judgment is has 60(b) provides pertinent part: W.R.C.P. released, satisfied, discharged, or or a been Mistakes; inadvertence; neglect; excusable prior judgment upon based which it is evidence; fraud, newly discovered etc.—On vacated, or it is no motion, been reversed or otherwise upon just, such terms longer equitable that should party legal repre- his relieve or (6) any order, prospective application; or other judgment, sentative from final proceeding take, inadvertence, operation (1) justifying from the following reason relief mis- reasons: judgment. surprise, ne- excusable later wishes to draw issue the facts ruled on a motion for relief from the confessed, thus he must move in the trial of a default judgment, or a default judgment; court to set aside the he can- all doubts should be resolved favor of by appealing party seeking not the facts draw relief. issue directly judgment, from the default be- An examination of the in this record they on the record stand confess- cause case discloses that Mr. filed three scope of ed. But while the review motions to amend divorce decree on appeal thus limited on from a default February 26 and 1987. Two of those judgment, the mere fact that the upon 59(e),2 motions relied W.R.C.P. while has defaulted does defeat his below remaining authority motion recites no ap- right appeal. may, He on direct motions, for its basis. those judgment, peal attack partial asked court for relief court, jurisdiction it for want hold, from its final We under for failure of the to state a circumstances, Spitzer that Mr. sub claim, procedural irregularity or in stantially complied 55(c) with W.R.C.P. proceedings the course below. 60(b) compliance and that such was suffi Here, (Emphasis added.) ques- while not jurisdiction cient to confer on this Court to tioning Spitzer’s appeal liability, his Mr. appeal judg consider his from the default procedures in contests the the district against ment entered him. court, including specifically the award of "We are also asked to decide whether a unliquidated from an person contempt is in who of the district Thus, claim. are not convinced that Mr. we standing present court has his case on Spitzer precluded bringing would be appeal. raised this issue him- appeal by this failure move set aside self, apparently anticipating that it would believe, however, judgment. We appeal. Spitzer, an issue in be this adequately did in fact seek however, present argue is- required relief from the trial court. defending against appeal. sue in Con- recognize 7(b)(1) pro- We that W.R.C.P. sequently, appeal we will dismiss the applicable in part: vides nor address this issue the absence of (b) papers. Motions and other briefing question. on adversative We

(1) application An to the court for an note, however, power do to dismiss which, by order shall be motion unless in such situations has treated been as dis- trial, during hearing made shall Am.Jur.2d, cretionary. 4 Appeal See writing, partic- made shall state with (1962). addition, gener- Error 239 § ularity grounds therefor, and shall al rule has been stated that sought. set or order appeal where an or writ of error is a forth relief right, party aggrieved by matter of (Emphasis added.) Correspondingly, how- ever, Kane, deprived or decree is not Wright, 10 C. A. Miller & M. having privilege by reviewed Federal Practice 2d and Procedure: Civil contempt fact that he is in of court. (1983), 2693 at 483-85 the authors state: § continually struggle The courts C.J.S., with Appeal 4 208 and Error at 611 § the conflict (1957). between the need combat delay disregard the rules and DISPOSITION justice their desire to in the case be- do * * * [Sjeveral fore them. courts have contends the district 55(c) 60(b) concluded that ex- court abused its discretion when it entered Rules press policy liberality awarding mo- toward default divorce relief Spitzer beyond requested tions for relief from default entries and to Ms. in her Further, judgments. they conducting without an evidentia- 59(e) provides: days 2. W.R.C.P. be served not later than 10 after judgment. judgment. Motion to alter or amend a —A motion to alter or amend the shall

591 International, Playboy essen- Penthouse Ltd. v. determine what were ry agree. Inc., (2d damages. 663 F.2d unliquidated Enterprises, We 371 Cir. tially 1981). As stated Penthouse Interna recognized that default long We have tional, Ltd.: not favored the law. judgments are applied 37 sanctions must be dili- “Rule Nord, (Wyo. 193 Claassen v. penalize those gently ‘to whose con- both 1988); Cheyenne National Westring v. deemed to warrant such a duct (Wyo.1964). 122 It is Bank, 393 P.2d sanction, might to deter those who [and] tried on their mer cases be preferable that tempted conduct in the ab- to such 611 Husky Company, Oil its. Mora v. will vided ply with P.2d at P.2d states Agency, trolling discovery propriate sanction for a willful (Emphasis uments are hue, protective order.3 Id. Under documents for es where serts a tration of Caterpillar Tractor Default, (b) pending may make such orders an order to to the failure as parts others the thereof, ings * * * A trial court has broad produce such documents discovery (2) (C) inherent recognize 674 P.2d 1276 Failure to ^{[*] [*]} the action or for W.R.C.P. in relevant until the 122. In a * * * thereof, An order the court discovery proper objection or moves Inc., against the disobedient added.) justice by imposing party simply Mora, demanded, ^{[*] [*]} power following: If a sanction provide or orders. rendering discovery, the (Wyo.1980); Westring, 393 713 P.2d order is comply with order. proper striking part: ^[*] orders, ^[*] staying (Wyo.1983). propriety proceeding or Company v. protect P.2d at 849. obeyed, Farrell v. for failure to com- refuses case, 37(b)(2)(C),which ^[*] 4c party just, 1174 permit discretion selecting the further expressly pro- trial court unless the action is of a default fails to however, pleadings circumstanc the adminis ^[*] (Wyo.1986); violation ^[*] When discovery sanctions. obligated any part party proceed- dismiss- produce among regard in con Hursh Dona he as for a ^[*] obey ^[*] doc we ap [.] or Hockey League v. press, sence [2778,] 2781[, curiam) to deter those who (1980)).] penalize rule must trum of sanctions 100 S.Ct. Club, deemed warrant League, deterrent.” [ obey 2781.)] such conduct vere pose.... penalties,’ sanctions U.S. (1909), ny] v. litigation, provided have on the whom general deterrent at fault. general deterrent “ * * * “These sanctions * * * “ * * * 4c % 4c disciplinary measures: [Inc., 427 U.S. of such a deterrent.’ National Inc. v. they are Arkansas, ].” courts discovery to appropriate [G]rossly negligent failure those whose 427 U.S. at [T]he n may ^[*] The ^[*] * 2455, 2462, 65 L.Ed.2d 488 [Although the most drastic 29 S.Ct. Hammon * * [ instant case (Quoting in the absence Piper, (Quoting Roadway Ex- are free to principal imposed available to not be most severe 4c ^[*] L.Ed.2d n effect their orders provided [15 order Metropolitan Hockey policy serve a threefold might such a cases, 370, 447 U.S. 639,] Ann.Cas. Packing ^[*] imposed National 4c 643, 96 ^[*] conduct is, objective of may justify se- 53 L.Ed. in some not and on other sanction, consider the in the ^[*] 4c tempted to (1976) 4« statute merely to party on 645,] 212 as ‘mere Co[mpa S.Ct. 96 S.Ct. may is strict Hockey such sense, spec- n ^{[*] [*]} (per may pur but 530 be at case, order. assert an In this 3. protective objection for a or make a motion ‘responsibilities Although entry

adherence to the counsel we conclude the of de- opponents,’ case, to the Court and to their appropriate owe fault was in this we can- Negli 427 U.S. at 96 S.Ct. at 2780. justify granted the relief the divorce intentional, gent, wrongs are no less than operating judgment. as a default subjects general deterrence. And fit entry The distinction between an of default gross professional incompetence no less and a default must here rec- intransigence tactical than deliberate ognized. Mora, gen- 611 P.2d at 849. See responsible for the interminable Wright, Kane, erally 10 C. A. Miller & M. plague delays and costs that modern supra 2682 and at and W.R.C.P. §§ (Quoting complex lawsuits.” Cine For [ 55(a) (b). Entry normally of default is Corp. v. Al ty-Second Street Theatre performed by a clerical act which Corp., 602 F.2d lied Artists Pictures court, the clerk of and it does not consti- (2d 49 A.L.R.Fed. Cir. tute a of default 1979).)] generally forecloses the found to be omitted). (citations Id. at 386-87 making any in default from further de- The record in the instant case demon- liability fense or assertion with Spitzer repeatedly strates that Mr. and bla- or an asserted claim. v. State ex Zweifel obey tantly failed to the district court’s Brimmer, (Wyo.1974); rel. 517 P.2d 493 discovery. Initially, orders on Wright, Kane, supra C. A. Miller & M. at ignored Request the “First for Production gen- of default § Documents,” although this did omission erally liability establishes the fact of ac- not violate a order and was not sub- cording complaint, does not estab- ject to Rule 37 then sanctions. degree lish either the amount or the enforcing discovery obtained an order Parkhurst, relief. Adel v. request requiring compliance with her Moore, (Wyo.1984); Taggart 6 J. & W. deposition. Spitzer, notice of in cavali- Wicker, J. Moore’s Federal Practice disregard order, er of the court (2d ed.1988). H55.03[2] respond discovery to either effort. Accord- hand, judgment, The default on the other ingly, the district court entered the order liability, in addition to the fact of defines judgment providing ten liability the amount of or the nature of the days produce discovery additional to the generally separately relief. This is done upon pain documents for failure of default entry Only in from the of default. those comply. Spitzer again to failed or re- damages sought the are respond, to court situations where fused and the district complaint pursuant liquidated entered default to W.R.C.P. and claimed in the 37(b)(2)(C). may grant relief further the court without proceedings. principle encompassed This is entry the of default for failure 54(c), provides part W.R.C.P. which comply discovery court is to with mandated judgment by default shall not that “[a] penalty, persuaded a harsh we are in kind from or exceed in amount different district court acted within its discretion prayed judg for in the demand for that doing so in this case. conclude that We circumstances, In ment.” certain appropriate an to default was method ad- by liquidated claimed sum can be awarded dress Mr. recalcitrance under the 55(b)(1).5 the clerk of court. W.R.C.P. circumstances. The district court did not damages or relief claimed are Where the respect its discretion with to the abuse specified certainty against Spitzer. unliquidated or not with entry of default 4. See Wright, Zweifel, According to 10 C. A. Miller & M. P.2d at for an elabora- Kane, 54(c). entry judg- theory underlying supra of default § W.R.C.P. at an tion on the Leslie, may by Marriage liquidated the 112 Wash.2d ment on a claim be made See also of (1989) (a judgment grant- only clerk of court in those cases where the 772 P.2d 1013 default defaulting party appear beyond sought and not where relief that with- participate in opportunity de- the default involves a failure to out notice and an to be heard proceedings. subsequent stages process). of the nied due (here, issuing proceedings In the decree complaint, in the further as a judgment), 55(b)(2) default the district court provides for was indicated. W.R.C.P. required proceed to in accordance with by the It entry judgment of court. (1977), Wyo.Stat. pro- 20-2-114 § reads, part: in relevant vides: If, in the court to enter order to enable granting divorce, In the court shall effect, carry it into it is or to disposition property such make of the necessary take an account to deter- parties appears just equitable, the as damages or mine to estab- the amount having regard respective for the merits any by lish averment evi- the truth parties of the and the condition which investigation dence or to make an divorce, they by party will be left the the matter, may court such other the conduct through acquired whom the was hearings or order such references as upon imposed prop- and the burdens proper, necessary deems and shall erty party for the benefit of either right jury of trial to the accord a may children. The court either required parties by any as when and party alimony of the reasonable es- statute. having regard tate other noted, Farrell, at we ability other’s order so much permissive nature of with the other’s real estate or the rents and rule, above profits necessary thereof is as- signed and set out to either require testimo- “Rule 55 does not life, may paid specific sum be decree a ny presented prerequisite as a party. either judgment. How- of a default ever, advantageous, assigns seems a Essentially, when it to the the statute court equitable making just conduct a to deter- the function of parties, judgment by disposition to enter mine whether Kane, provision of and it allows for the reason- Wright, Miller default.” 10 & alimony. accomplish In order to able Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil statute, under the court must function (1983). 2d § adequate regarding information The determination whether property of nature and extent of the 55(b)(2) necessary under hearing is Rule parties, including specific information iden- is also the sound discretion of the within record tifying property, such as owner- trial court. property. Additional- ship to titled or real scope of discretion afforded the trial award, making ly, in rule, however, court under the does not regarding the must have information abili- extend of a default ty pay. this information essen- Where liquidated damages are not where the judgment, proper for the of a the tial Adel, certainty. In 681 articulated with by simply discretion enter- court abuses its 892, P.2d at we said: of tendered one of ing a form however, burden, upon The those seek- parties. the ing damages to than mere nominal more case, the divorce decree In the instant prove damages. requirement The their listing of only the itemization contains 55(b)(2),W.R.C.P., hearing of of a Rule record is oth- parties. The property the damages not with which are identifies, in anything that erwise devoid of liquidated rule of is consistent with the judg- and prior order with the accordance by permitted those cases. The default ment, “any she deems are and all assets does not concede the amount defendant Further, what assets a properly hers.” damages. unliquidated demanded belong to that party to a divorce deems relevant, as (Citations omitted.) Midway party may particularly Oil See also belong par- to the property must Guess, 346 the still Corporation 714 P.2d v. Where, here, the trial del- as part applying and ties. (Wyo.1986) (quoting party, to a property division egates the principle). the above 594 rights judicial upon function. The district and should not terminate the

abdicates just party. death of either statutory directive to court’s make parties’ disposition of the equitable Warren, v. 361 Warren P.2d 527 provide for reasonable ali- property and to (Wyo.1961),we stated: assigned to mony properly be one cannot granted Alimony support as and main- parties the have evi- parties. Unless upon tenance terminates the death of agreement regarding alimony denced an parties. true, either of the This is not division, district court property and a however, payments which them- by making perform its function fails to integral part adjustment selves an of the receiving without evi- such a determination property rights. Thus, in this determine case dence. we (Citations omitted.) See also Yates v. its discretion court abused that the district Yates, (Wyo.1985), P.2d decree, entering as a default the divorce McMillan, 1279, 1282 McMillan v. property judgment encompassing a division (Wyo.1985). case, ques In this there is no award, hearing. Al- alimony absent alimony tion that the award was intended Spit- default and Ms. though support as rather than maintenance as stand, we re- grant zer’s of divorce will integral part adjustment prop of the hearing respecting evidentiary verse for an erty rights. Paragraph 7 of the decree alimony. property division award expressly provided: Spitzer] pay Spitzer] shall [Mr. [Ms. remaining issues concern the sum of Six Hundred Thousand Dol- alimony provision and one nunc ($600,000.00) alimony, lars as and for amending pro property divi- tunc orders settlement, property and not as holding sion of the divorce decree. Our provided *. hereinbefore requiring a on the divi- added.) remand, however, (Emphasis Upon problems effectively disposes any sion if the district court makes a similar award adjust- pro the nunc tunc amendments with intending alimony, provision it to award. designed upon should be to terminate similarly amount of the award will party in death of either order to be effec- subject evidentiary hearing, the to an as and to further con- tive intended avoid presents problem nature of that note, operation. test as to its We also likely again presented to the that will ambiguity, another reason to avoid appellate proper district court. It is for an consequences certain tax flow questions that are court to address bound provisions by the construction of such McGuire, again. to arise v. McGuire Internal Revenue Service. (Wyo.1980). P.2d pro- Reversed and remanded for further ceedings opinion. problem alimony provi consistent with this The with paragraph 7 of the sion is reflected CARDINE, C.J., opinion filed an decree, provides part: dissenting. partially concurring and obligation pay the total sum of Six ($600,000.00) CARDINE, Justice, partially Dollars Chief Hundred Thousand concurring dissenting. set under the terms as hereinbefore obligation of forth shall be an opinion I ex- concur of the court trustee, executor, zer], Spitzer’s] cept part holding for that that the district death. Spitzer’s] successor after [Mr. discretion because it en- court abused its tered without a and with- provision is asserts that such a contrary Wyoming to case law. that, regarding

zer as Mr. “adequate contends inasmuch information the na- has not made a full disclosure of the assets of the ture and extent acquired during marriage, alimony including specific parties, information identifying property, inte- such as record should be considered as an ownership property. real Ad- gral part adjustment to titled or award, making ditionally, in regard- have information

the court must ability pay.” to steadfastly re- appellant case and to the give over the wife fused in- consisting of court information district statements; returns; tax financial come stocks, ownership pertaining to records statements; bonds, cash; informa- bank the marital pertaining to tion assets others; possession informa- estate accounts; checking infor- pertaining tion pertaining assets in which mation interest; life insur- the husband claimed an policies; pertaining information ance sharing, and other retire- pension, profit pertaining to plans; information ment husband. owed indebtedness hearing should be I hold that a would might husband at which the wife and held If the husband present evidence. their evidence, he appear offer not to chooses received, by the evidence is bound appropriate enter an court could only upon the evidence available. based holding presently of the court Under the articulated, by refusing to disclose informa-

tion, prevent forever appellant can CO., LTD., Wyoming CLIFF & Ratcliff, Corporation; and Sam (Defendants), Appellants

v. ANDERSON; C. Norman Andrew W. Wyo- Enterprises, Moore; Coulter FDIC, formerly ming Partnership; Company, a Bank & Trust Stockmens Corporation; Banking Wyoming Investments, Wyoming Partner- Dorr (Plaintiffs). ship, Appellees

No. 88-255. Wyoming. Court of Supreme July

Case Details

Case Name: Spitzer v. Spitzer

Court Name: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date Published: Jul 3, 1989

Citation: 777 P.2d 587

Docket Number: 87-123

Court Abbreviation: Wyo.