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.

Hofhine v. Hofhine

Supreme Court of Wyoming

July 3, 2014

JESSICA LYN HOFHINE, Appellant (Plaintiff),
v.
MIKE DAVID HOFHINE, Appellee (Defendant)

Appeal from the District Court of Uinta County. The Honorable Dennis L. Sanderson, Judge.

Representing Appellant: John A. Thomas and Ammon E. Francom, John A. Thomas Law Office, Evanston, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee: Farrah L. Spencer, Long, Reimer, Winegar, Beppler, LLP, Park City, Utah; Monica J. Vozakis, Long, Reimer, Winegar, Beppler, LLP, Evanston, Wyoming.

Before BURKE, C.J., and HILL, KITE[*], DAVIS, and FOX, JJ.

OPINION

Page 243

BURKE, Chief Justice.

[¶1] Appellant, Jessica Lyn Hofhine, challenges the district court's order denying her " Motion for Enforcement of Judgment and Decree of Divorce." She asserts she is entitled to an " income equalization" payment under the terms of the parties' divorce decree. She also contends the district court erred in awarding attorney's fees to Appellee. We affirm.

ISSUES

[¶2] 2 Ms. Hofhine presents the following issues:

1. Whether the district court erred in its interpretation and application of the legal documents governing the property distribution between Appellant and Appellee, and the equalization of their incomes.
2. Whether the district court violated Appellant's right to due process of law when it did not allow any party or witness testimony at the hearing on Appellant's motion to equalize income.
3. Whether the district court's order awarding attorney's fees should be reversed.

Mr. Hofhine presents an additional issue:

1. Whether Husband is entitled to attorney's fees incurred on appeal.

FACTS

[¶3] The parties were married in 2001. Ms. Hofhine filed for divorce in September, 2010. At that time, Mr. Hofhine was the president and sole shareholder of New Tech Inspection Service (New Tech), and Ms. Hofhine worked for the company as an office manager and bookkeeper. In November, 2010, after Ms. Hofhine submitted a motion for temporary spousal support, the district court entered an " Order Setting Current Salaries," which provided that both parties would " continue to be employed by New Tech Inspection Service at their current salaries of $5,200.00 gross each per each semi-monthly pay period." The order also stated that " any ...


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.