Hyatt v. Hyatt

540 P.3d 873

James L. HYATT, Appellant (Defendant),

v.Tara M. HYATT, Appellee (Plaintiff).

S-23-0117

Supreme Court of Wyoming.

December 29, 2023

Representing Appellant: Hilary K. Brewster, Rock Springs, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee: Crystal D. Stewart, Devon P. O'Connell, Pence and MacMillan LLC, Laramie, Wyoming.

Before FOX, C.J., and KAUTZ, BOOMGAARDEN, GRAY, and FENN, JJ.

KAUTZ, Justice.

[¶1] The district court granted James L. Hyatt (Father) and Tara M. Hyatt (Mother) a divorce, awarded Mother custody of their two minor children, ordered Father to pay child support, and divided the marital property. Father appeals, challenging the court's division of the property and its child support and custody decisions. We affirm.

ISSUES

[¶2] Father raises three issues which we restate as follows:

1. Did the district court abuse its discretion when dividing the marital property?

2. Did the district court incorrectly determine Father's net monthly income for the purposes of calculating child support?

3. Did the district court err by awarding Mother custody of the children?

FACTS

[¶3] Father and Mother married on September 13, 2015. They have two children, a son, HRH, born in August 2011, and a daughter, HAH, born in January 2018. During most of the marriage, Father was self-employed at Never Summer Express, LLC (NSE), a long-haul trucking company. As a long-haul trucker, Father was out of town during the week. Mother stayed home with the children and homeschooled HRH.

[¶4] In December 2018, Father added Mother as a signer on NSE's business bank account, and she became a 50 percent owner of NSE in February 2019. Mother was not personally compensated during the marriage for her ownership interest other than by having access to the money transferred from NSE's business bank account to her and Father's personal bank account. During most of the marriage, Father withdrew $8,800 from NSE each month ($4,800 as salary and $4,000 as an owner's withdrawal), totaling $105,600 per year. The rest of NSE's earnings remained in its business bank account.

[¶5] In July 2019, Mother began receiving disturbing text messages from anonymous phone numbers on her personal cell phone. She believed the messages came from Father because their content resembled the way he spoke to her during the marriage (i.e., "devaluing, lots of blame, just really mean") and they contained information only he would know. However, when confronted, he denied sending the messages. In December 2020, Mother hired a private investigator (PI) to determine the source of the messages. The PI completed his investigation in April 2021 and concluded Father had sent the messages.

[¶6] Three months later, on July 24, 2021, Father removed Mother as a signer on NSE's business bank account, cut off her ability to use the parties’ joint credit card, and withdrew $8,000 from the parties’ joint checking account, leaving Mother with $9,800. Due to these circumstances and the harassing text messages, Mother did not feel safe around Father so she and the children moved out of the marital home and into a safe house for fourteen weeks. While living in the safe house, Mother allowed the children to call or FaceTime with Father each day but did not allow him physical contact with the children until October 2, 2021. On that date, Mother allowed HRH to stay the night with Father at the marital home. Since that time, HRH has regularly stayed with Father every other weekend, first at the marital home and then at Father's two-bedroom apartment. Although HAH began visiting Father on October 2, 2021, she had not spent the night at his house by the time of the trial in August 2022.

[¶7] In August 2021, Mother filed a complaint for divorce and Father counterclaimed for divorce. Both parties sought custody of the children, child support, a just and equitable division of the marital property, and attorney fees. Mother also requested alimony during the pendency of the divorce proceedings. Two months later, the parties agreed Father would move out of and Mother and the children would move back into the marital home. Father agreed to pay all household expenses, including the mortgage, not to exceed $2,300 per month, from November 1, 2021, to February 1, 2022.

[¶8] In December 2021, Mother asked the district court for temporary possession of the marital home, temporary custody of the children, temporary child support and alimony, and an order requiring Father to pay her attorney fees. Father opposed Mother's requests and filed a counter motion for possession of the marital home and visitation with both children every other weekend. The court heard the motions and entered an order granting Mother temporary possession of the marital home and temporary custody of the children subject to Father's visitation every Wednesday evening from 5 p.m. to 7 p.m. and every other weekend. It also ordered Father to pay Mother $6,000 per month in alimony and child support for four months (May 2022 to August 2022) and $10,000 for her attorney fees.

[¶9] After a bench trial in August 2022, the district court granted the parties a divorce, divided the marital property, and awarded Mother custody of the children. It granted Father visitation every other weekend from Thursday to Sunday, two hours on Wednesdays during the off weeks, and half the summer. The district court ordered Father to pay $2,327 per month in child support, $3,673 in monthly alimony from November 2022 through August 2023, and $20,000 of Mother's attorney fees and costs. Father timely appealed.

[¶10] We will provide additional facts, as necessary, in the discussion of the issues.

DISCUSSION

Property Division

[¶11] We review the district court's division of marital property, including its decision to award alimony, for an abuse of discretion. Conzelman v. Conzelman , 2019 WY 123, ¶ 15, 453 P.3d 773, 778 (Wyo. 2019). "The ultimate question in determining whether an abuse of discretion occurred is whether the trial court could have reasonably concluded as it did." Metz v. Metz , 2003 WY 3, ¶ 6, 61 P.3d 383, 385 (Wyo. 2003) (citing Horn v. Welch , 2002 WY 138, ¶ 8, 54 P.3d 754, 758 (Wyo. 2002) ). "We will not disturb a property division in a divorce case, except on clear grounds, as the trial court is usually in a better position than the appellate court to judge the parties’ needs and the merits of their positions." Id. (citing Paul v. Paul , 616 P.2d 707, 712 (Wyo. 1980), and Warren v. Warren , 361 P.2d 525, 526 (Wyo. 1961) ). An abuse of discretion will be found, however, "when ‘the property disposition shocks the conscience of this Court and appears to be so unfair and inequitable that reasonable people cannot abide it.’ " Innes v. Innes , 2021 WY 137, ¶ 16, 500 P.3d 259, 262 (Wyo. 2021) (quoting Malli v. Malli , 2020 WY 42, ¶ 14, 460 P.3d 245, 249 (Wyo. 2020), and Long v. Long , 2018 WY 26, ¶ 22, 413 P.3d 117, 125 (Wyo. 2018) ).

[¶12] The district court awarded Mother the marital home valued at $500,000 ($216,000 of which was equity), a $90,000 residential lot purchased by the parties during the marriage, her vehicle (a 2020 Ford F-150 truck), her $8,000 wedding ring, and her $27,894.63 retirement account with the City of Rock Springs. It valued NSE at $149,000 and gave it to Father. Father also received his $2,567.66 retirement account, his vehicle (a 2019 Ford F-350 truck), the gun safe, and various tools, guns, and ammunition. The court made Mother responsible for the $1,740.90 monthly mortgage on the marital home and her $12,683.19 Wells Fargo Visa credit card debt. It made Father responsible for his $2,835.41 Capital One Visa credit card debt and directed him to pay Mother's American Express credit card debt totaling $22,145. Although it considered its award of extra property to Mother to be a "partial substitute for alimony," the court found Father had the ability to pay alimony and Mother was "in need of continued temporary support for a short period to allow [her] an opportunity ... to establish ... self-employment or other employment." It also took into consideration that Mother had already begun homeschooling HRH for the 2022-2023 school year and would need time to address whether that would continue. Consequently, the district court ordered Father to pay $3,673 in monthly alimony from November 2022 through August 2023. Finally, the court determined Father should pay $20,000 of Mother's attorney fees because they were necessary for her to carry on and defend the divorce proceedings.

[¶13] The district court recognized its division of the property was unequal but concluded such division was equitable under the circumstances given the condition in which the parties would be left by the divorce, the fact the parties chose for Mother to leave established employment to be a homemaker and the children's caretaker, and the burdens imposed on the property for the benefit of the children.

[¶14] Father argues the district court abused its discretion when dividing the marital property. He challenges the court giving a majority of the property to Mother, the award of alimony, the requirement that he pay Mother's American Express credit card debt, and the court's attorney fees order. We address each argument in turn.

Majority of Property to Mother

[¶15] Father claims the evidence does not support the district court giving Mother a majority of the marital property. He points to the short duration of the marriage, Mother's unilateral decision to quit her job so she could stay home with the children and homeschool HRH, and the fact he contributed more pre-marital assets to the marriage than Mother. He maintains the court should have equally divided the property.

[¶16] The disposition of marital property in a divorce is governed by Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 20-2-114(a) (LexisNexis 2023) which states in relevant part:

[I]n granting a divorce, the court shall make such disposition of the property of the parties as appears just and equitable, having regard for the respective merits of the

...