Jones v. Young

550 P.3d 91

2024 WY 64

Jeremy JONES, Appellant (Plaintiff),

v.Bethany YOUNG, Appellee (Defendant).

S-23-0241

Supreme Court of Wyoming.

June 12, 2024

Appeal from the District Court of Albany County, The Honorable Misha E. Westby, Judge

Representing Appellant: Jordan A. Surber, Coal Creek Law LLP, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee: Linda J. Steiner and Abigail Fournier, Steiner, Fournier, Zook & Case, LLC, Cheyenne, Wyoming

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

FOX, Chief Justice.

[¶1] Jeremy Jones filed a complaint for divorce against Bethany Young. The district court entered a judgment and decree that awarded the marital home to Mr. Jones. The decree divided the equity in the home evenly and based the value of the home on the greater value testified to at trial and a value to be established by a future appraisal. Mr. Jones appealed. Because the decree is not a final order, we dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

ISSUE

[¶2] Mr. Jones presents two issues. However, we find the following issue dispositive:

Whether the district court’s Judgment and Decree of Divorce is a final appealable order that resolves all outstanding issues?

FACTS

[1] [¶3] Jeremy Jones and Bethany Young executed their Post-Nuptial Property Agreement ("the agreement") two days after their wedding in 2014.¹ The parties separated after six and half years, with no children bom of their marriage. Mr. Jones filed a complaint for divorce, and litigation ensued over the agreement’s enforceability and how it applied to certain real and personal property the parties had accumulated during their marriage.

[¶4] The district court held a one-day trial. It received evidence and heard argument from Mr. Jones and Ms. Young regarding their interpretations of the agreement and how it should be applied to the disputed property; their individual contributions to the property; and their opinions as to the date of valuation for the marital home.

[¶5] The court also heard testimony about the value of the marital residence from Ms. Young and real estate professionals. Ms. Young testified she believed the real property was worth a little over a million dollars based on the Albany County Assessor’s website. A certified residential appraiser, who had appraised the property at $775,000 two years prior to the trial, testified, and his appraisal was admitted into evidence. The court also heard from a licensed realtor who testified to his comparative market analysis report completed a few months before trial. He valued the property at a range of $890,000 to $925,000 with a suggested list price of $925,000.

[¶6] The court entered its Judgment and Decree of Divorce, disposing of the real and personal property in accordance with its interpretation of the agreement. Mr. Jones was awarded exclusive possession of the marital residence. But the court awarded the parties their respective contributions towards the home,² and ordered

The parties shall conduct another appraisal of the marital residence to have a current and accurate value of the residence as of 2023. Such appraisal will then be the determining value of the marital residence. However, in no case shall the marital residence be valued less than $925,000.00. Mr. Jones may select an appraiser of his choice. Following the appraisal, both parties shall split and divide evenly all remaining equity of the marital residence.

Mr. Jones timely appealed the district court’s Judgment and Decree of Divorce.

DISCUSSION

[2, 3] [¶7] This Court may raise the question of whether a final appealable order was entered "sua sponte because it implicates our jurisdiction over the appeal." Davidson-Eaton v. Iversen, 2021 WY 49, ¶ 9, 484 P.3d 23, 24-25 (Wyo. 2021) (citing Edsall v. Moore, 2016 WY 71, ¶ 10, 375 P.3d 799, 801 (Wyo. 2016)); Wood v. Wood, 2018 WY 93, ¶ 5, 424 P.3d 247, 248 (Wyo. 2018) ("We may review an order from a district court only if it is ‘appealable.’ ") (quoting W.R.A.P. 1.04(a). "Whether an order is final and appealable is a question of law, which we decide de novo." Schmitz v. State Dep’t of Workforce Servs. Lab. Standards, 2017 WY 143, ¶ 14, 406 P.3d 312, 315 (Wyo. 2017) (quoting Waldron v. Waldron, 2015 WY 64, ¶ 14, 349 P.3d 974, 977-78 (Wyo. 2015), overruled on other grounds by Essex Holding, LLC v. Basic Properties, Inc., 2018 WY 111, ¶ 14, 427 P. 3d 708 (Wyo. 2018)).

[4, 5] [¶8] The Wyoming Rules of Appellate Procedure define an appealable order as "[a]n order affecting a substantial right in an action, when such order, in effect, determines the action and prevents a judgment." W.R.A.P. 1.05(a). "This Court has consistently held that an appealable order under W.R.A.P. 1.05 has ‘three necessary characteristics … It must affect a substantial right, determine the merits of the controversy, and resolve all outstanding issues.’ " Matter of SLD, 2024 WY 50, ¶ 8, 547 P.3d 974, 976-77 (Wyo. 2024) (citing Matter of Phyllis V. McDill Revocable Tr., 2020 WY 99, ¶ 14, 468 P.3d 694, 699 (Wyo. 2020)). "Generally[,] a judgment or order which determines the merits of the controversy and leaves nothing for future consideration is final and appealable, and it is not appealable unless it does those things." Gaston v. Life Care Ctrs. of Am., Inc., 2021 WY 74, ¶ 14, 488 P.3d 929, 935 (Wyo. 2021) (quoting Woods v. Woods, 2001 WY 131, ¶ 8, 36 P.3d 1142, 1144 (Wyo. 2001)).

[6] [¶9] Although divorce is an area of the law "where ‘finality’ can be elusive," Weiss v. Weiss, 2008 WY 30, ¶ 12, 178 P.3d 1091, 1096 (Wyo. 2008), "the purpose of requiring a final appealable order ‘is to avoid fragmentary appeals and decisions made in a piecemeal fashion.’ " Davidson-Eaton, 2021 WY 49, ¶ 10, 484 P.3d at 25 (quoting Painter v. McGill ex rel. Wyo. Bd. of Med., 2019 WY 108, ¶ 15, 450 P.3d 1243, 1247 (Wyo. 2019)). This Court has noted "piecemeal litigation of divorces should be avoided. Except in rare cases, ‘all issues in a divorce should be resolved in a single decree.’ " Begley v. Begley, 2020 WY 77, ¶ 23, 466 P.3d 276, 284 (Wyo. 2020) (quoting Loran v. Loran, 2015 WY 24, ¶ 10 n. 1, 343 P.3d 400, 402 n. 1 (Wyo. 2015)). This purpose is illustrated by the Arkansas Court of Appeals, which decided a similar matter in an unreported opinion, Rezanka v. Rezanka, No. CA 05-298, 2005 WL 2414620, (Ark. Ct. App. Sept. 28, 2005). In Rezanka, the trial court entered a decree of divorce which resolved most of the property issues except for the husband’s marital interest in two corporate entities. Id. at *1. The trial court’s order stated the following regarding one of the entities:

Randy Minton of Cabot, Arkansas, has been hired to appraise the land and building owned by [the entity] by agreement of the parties. After arriving at the appraised value of the land and building, the total debt on the land and building shall be subtracted from the appraised value and the [wife] shall pay the [husband] twenty-five percent of said amount.

Id.

[¶10] The husband appealed, and the Arkansas Court of Appeals dismissed his appeal, holding the order was not final "because the trial court’s assessment of the value of [the entity] ha[d] yet to be calculated … No appraisal ha[d] been conducted, and the trial court made no specific finding as to the amount of the corporate debt that was to be deducted from the value of the property." Id. at *1-2. The record also did not indicate "that either the parties or the trial court were bound to accept the appraiser’s conclusion as to the property’s value. Since the potential for dispute remain[ed], deciding this appeal would thwart the goal of avoiding piecemeal litigation." Id. at *2.

[¶11] This Court has also found when substantial matters are left unresolved, there is no final appealable order. Painter, 2019 WY 108, ¶¶ 15, 21, 450 P.3d at 1245-48 (finding no final appealable order when the order affirmed an administrative board’s decision in part, reversed in part, and reversed and remanded in part because "[t]he ultimate effect of the district court’s order is to leave substantial matters unresolved, namely, the number and nature of violations"). Weiss, 2008 WY 30, 178 P.3d at 1091, is not to the contrary. Although this Court found a final appealable order despite the fact the receiver had yet to obtain a survey so the property could be divided, it relied on the exception for receivers at W.R.A.P. 1.05(e)(2). Weiss, 2008 WY 30, ¶¶ 10, 13, 178 P.3d at 1094-95 ("An appealable order is … "[i]nterlocutory orders and decrees of the district courts which … [a]ppoint receivers, or issue orders to wind up receiverships, or to take steps to accomplish the purposes thereof, such as directing sales or other disposition of property.").

[7] [¶12] We conclude the district court’s Judgment and Decree of Divorce is not a final appealable order. At trial, the parties greatly contested the value of the marital residence. The district court did not set a value. It instead authorized Husband to choose an appraiser and obtain "another appraisal of the marital residence to have a current and accurate value of the residence as of 2023." This 2023 window was broad, with no direction as to whether the appraisal should reflect the home’s value as of January 2023, the date of trial, or just some date in 2023. For these reasons and those pointed out by the dissent, it would come as no surprise if the parties disagreed over that, and over the soundness of the appraisal, none of which of course were ruled on by the district court.

[¶13] The order attempted to foreclose further dispute over the home’s value by directing that it would be the greater of the new appraised value or the $925,000 value already in evidence. We view this as unrealistic. Nothing would preclude a W.R.C.P. 60(b) motion to challenge the new appraisal. While a Rule 60(b) motion does not in itself affect the finality of a judgment, the basis for such a motion in this case is indicative of the lack of finality in the judgment. The most highly contested issue in the...