KIMBERLY A. ACTON, Appellant (Plaintiff),
KURT W. ACTON, Appellee (Defendant).
from the District Court of Park County The Honorable Steven
R. Cranfill, Judge
H. Sitz III of Meinecke & Sitz, LLC, Cody, WY
Christopher J. King of Greear Clark King, P.C., Worland, WY
BURKE, C.J., and HILL, DAVIS, FOX, and KAUTZ, JJ.
Appellant, Kimberly A. Acton (Wife), argues that the district
court erred when it required her to return certain personal
property to Appellee, Kurt A. Acton (Husband). By allowing
Husband to recover property after the divorce decree's
90-day deadline, Wife argues that the district court
improperly modified a property settlement without the
required written agreement. We will affirm.
Did the district court have authority to modify the
parties' Decree of Divorce?
Husband and Wife divorced in October of 2014. Their divorce
decree incorporated a settlement. The settlement agreement
provided: "[n]o modification or waiver of any of the
terms of the Agreement shall be valid unless in
writing[.]" As part of the agreement, the settlement
awarded Wife possession of the marital home. However, also as
part of the agreement, Husband retained certain personal
property located within the home but per the agreement, must
have retrieved the property within 90 days, or forfeit it to
Wife. At least some of the personal property awarded to
Husband was not retrieved within the 90-day window.
matter began in June of 2016, when Husband filed a motion for
order to show cause why Wife should not be held in contempt
of court for refusing to allow Husband to retrieve the
aforementioned personal property. Wife answered and retorted
that Husband should be held in contempt for, among other
things, not paying alimony.
A hearing was held on Husband's motion, whereafter the
district court entered an order in February of 2017. The
court found neither party to have willfully violated the
divorce decree, and also found that "although the
parties did not enter a written agreement to extend the
90-day period required of [Husband] to retrieve the personal
property as set forth in their divorce agreement, …
[Wife] did extend that 90 day period several times." The
judge ordered Wife to turn over all personal property
belonging to Husband.
Wife filed a timely appeal.