Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Victor L. Mcmurry v. Robyn Loving Mcmurry

December 15, 2010

VICTOR L. MCMURRY, APPELLANT (PLAINTIFF),
v.
ROBYN LOVING MCMURRY, APPELLEE (DEFENDANT).



Appeal from the District Court of Sublette County The Honorable Marvin L. Tyler, Judge

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hill, Justice.

Before KITE, C.J., and GOLDEN, HILL, VOIGT, and BURKE, JJ.

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in Pacific Reporter Third. Readers are requested to notify the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Supreme Court Building, Cheyenne, Wyoming 82002, of any typographical or other formal errors so that correction may be made before final publication in the permanent volume.

[¶1] Appellant, Victor L. McMurry (Husband), challenges the Decree of Divorce entered of record by the district court on December 9, 2009. Husband contends the district court's conclusion that Husband intended to gift one-half of his overriding royalty interests to Appellee, Robyn Loving McMurry (Wife), is clearly erroneous. He also contends that the district court abused its discretion by allocating one-half of the parties' combined estates to Wife. Finally, he contends that the district court erred by awarding Wife attorney's fees when she plainly did not need them to defend the action. We will affirm the decree of divorce in all respects, as well as the award of attorney's fees.

ISSUES

[¶2] Husband raises these issues:

A. Whether the trial court's conclusion that [Husband] intended to gift one-half of his overriding royalty interests to [Wife] was clearly erroneous.

B. Whether the erroneous finding that [Husband] intended his overriding royalties to be joint property removed from the analysis of factors material to finding an equitable division of assets, the required consideration of "the party through whom the property was acquired."

C. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by allocating one-half of the parties' combined estates to [Wife].

D. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by awarding [Wife] attorney's fees when she plainly did not need them to defend the action.

Wife summarizes the issues like this:

1. Did the district court abuse its discretion by awarding Wife approximately one-half of the marital assets?

2. Did the district court abuse its discretion in awarding Wife her attorney's fees and costs?

FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS

[ΒΆ3] Husband's Complaint for Divorce was filed in the district court on July 29, 2005. The parties stipulated to a comprehensive list of the assets owned by them. That list included jointly held property, as well as property owned by the parties separately. The parties were married in the summer of 1981. Wife lived in the parties' Phoenix home ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.