Marital Domestic Separation and Property Settlement Agreement for persons with No Children, No Joint Property or Debts where Divorce Action Filed
Note: This summary is not intended to be an all inclusive
discussion of the law of separation agreements in Wyoming, but does include
basic and other provisions.
General Summary:
Separation and Property Agreements may be entered into before a divorce is filed to be effective immediately.
Subject to the requirement that they be "fair and equitable", property
settlement agreements serve as a contract between the parties and, once
incorporated into the decree, enforced as an order of the court.
Property Setlement Ageements are governed by Wyoming case law and
general principles establishing supporting the rights of the parties
to contract; the general divorce laws; and the duty of the courts to fairly
and equitably divide the property of the parties and provide for support
where necessary under the circumstances.
Wyoming statutes do not contain express provisions relating to property
settlement agreements. Separation and Property Agreements are analyzed
under the general principle that the courts wil make a fair and equitable
distribution of the marital property.
Statutes:
Disposition of property to be equitable; factors; alimony generally:
In 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 parties and the condition in which they
will be left by the divorce, the party through whom the property was acquired
and the burdens imposed upon the property for the benefit of either party
and children. The court may decree to either party reasonable alimony out
of the estate of the other having regard for the other's ability to pay
and may order so much of the other's real estate or the rents and profits
thereof as is necessary be assigned and set out to either party for life,
or may decree a specific sum be paid by either party. Section 20-2-114.
Case Law:
It is firmly established that "[p]roperty settlement agreements
entered into by the parties prior to a divorce action are generally recognized
and given force and effect in the decree," Prentice v. Prentice,
Wyo., 568 P.2d 883, 886 (1977), and that such agreements are favored by
the courts. Clauss v. Clauss, Wyo., 459 P.2d 369 (1969).
In Wyoming, the trial court has great discretion in dividing marital
property, Barney v. Barney, Wyo., 705 P.2d 342 (1985), and a trial
court's discretion will not be disturbed except on clear grounds. Piper
v. Piper, Wyo., 487 P.2d 1062 (1971). This is consistent with the legislature's
decision that "the court shall make such disposition of the property of
the parties as appears just and equitable." Section 20-2-114, W.S. 1977,
1986 Cum.Supp. The Wyoming courts will not adjust a property settlement
incorporated into a divorce decree by a judge absent a clear abuse of discretion
- such abuse as would shock the conscience of the court. Grosskopf v.
Grosskopf, Wyo., 677 P.2d 814 (1984).
Spouses may define their obligations to one another in a written
agreement. David v. David, 724 P.2d 1141, 1143 (Wyo.1986). The courts
favor property settlement agreements that the spouses have entered into
prior to commencing divorce actions. David v. David, 724 P.2d
at 1143. The divorce decrees usually recognize and incorporate these agreements.
Prentice v. Prentice, 568 P.2d 883, 886 (Wyo. 1977). In defining the parties' relative
obligations to one another, one spouse may agree to pay spousal support
or alimony to the other spouse. As long as it meets the requirements for
a valid contract, an agreement for spousal support is enforceable as a
contractual obligation. Smith v. Robinson, 912 P.2d 527, 528 (Wyo.
1996).
In Wyoming, it would seem that if the agreement were entered into
voluntarily and by competent persons and if the contract were not against
public policy or against the best interest of the children, the only proper
course for the court was to enforce it, or, rather, not to interfere with
it. Beard v. Beard, supra, 368 P.2d 953,955.
Even though property settlements are favored by the courts and are
generally recognized in Wyoming, the parties cannot oust a court's statutory
duty to "make such disposition of the property of the parties as appears
just and equitable" by entering into a "property settlement agreement"
which the judge cannot in good conscience approve and adopt when granting
a divorce. Leighton v. Leighton, 81 Wis.2d 620, 261 N.W.2d 457 (1978).