Background
The Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed a civil-contempt order requiring a former husband to take the steps needed to make the parties’ joint 2021 federal tax return operative and to bear the resulting interest and penalties. The dispute grew out of Guy Morrison III and Tami Hinson-Morrison’s divorce. Before the divorce action, Morrison prepaid $140,000 to the IRS as his estimated 2021 tax liability. Both spouses later filed separate returns, and their tax preparer allocated the prepayment to Hinson-Morrison. In February 2023, the Campbell County District Court ordered the parties to file an amended joint return “as soon as reasonably possible” and made them jointly and severally liable for associated assessments. The divorce decree incorporated a later decision letter again requiring joint returns for 2021 and 2022.
A joint 2021 return was filed in June 2023. On or about the same day, however, an amended separate return was filed for Morrison that claimed the $140,000 prepayment. The multiple filings left the money unresolved at the IRS. After the Supreme Court affirmed the divorce decree in an earlier appeal, Hinson-Morrison sought an order to show cause. The district court found Morrison’s explanation that he did not know about the amended separate return not credible. It held him in contempt, directed him within 60 days to withdraw all 2021 returns other than the joint return, and made him responsible for interest and penalties caused by the delay. Morrison appealed on the grounds that his conduct predated an enforceable directive, the order was insufficiently clear, IRS procedures prevented compliance, and the remedy exceeded the decree.
The Court’s Holding
Chief Justice Kate M. Boomgaarden, writing for a unanimous court, rejected the timing and clarity arguments. The February 2023 allocation order already required a joint 2021 return before the joint and amended separate returns were filed. The decree’s incorporated decision letter repeated that command. Civil contempt required clear and convincing evidence of an effective order, knowledge, and willful disobedience, with the underlying directive clear, specific, and unambiguous. The court held that the command to file jointly met that standard even though it did not prescribe every administrative step for correcting the earlier separate filings. Morrison’s inconsistent testimony, the near-simultaneous filings, and his failure to follow the retained accountant’s recommendations supported the willfulness finding. Under deferential review, the district court could reasonably credit that evidence and reject Morrison’s account.
The court also emphasized the burden-shifting framework. Once Hinson-Morrison proved willful disobedience, Morrison had to establish that he was unable to comply despite due diligence. General descriptions of IRS confusion, calls, identity-theft flags, and procedures did not show why he could not follow the accountant’s instruction to ask the IRS to apply the prepayment to the joint return. The monetary remedy was permissible compensation because testimony linked approximately $50,000 in interest and penalties to the delay. Finally, although “withdraw” was not technically precise IRS terminology, the hearing context made the purge condition workable: Morrison had to instruct the IRS to apply the prepayment to the joint return and take any other necessary steps to make that return operative. A party could not defeat enforcement by reading the word in an artificially narrow way.
Key Takeaways
- A Wyoming contempt finding may rest on a clear command to achieve a result even when the underlying order does not map every administrative step needed to reach it.
- After clear and convincing proof of willful noncompliance, the alleged contemnor bears the burden to prove inability to comply and must connect specific external obstacles to diligent but unsuccessful compliance efforts.
- Compensatory contempt sanctions require evidence of actual loss. Here, testimony tying tax interest and penalties to the obstructed joint filing supported assigning those amounts to the contemnor.
- Wyoming courts may interpret an imprecisely worded purge directive in the context of the show-cause hearing, including the relief requested and the practical steps discussed on the record.
Why It Matters
For Wyoming family-law practitioners, the decision underscores the value of building a concrete compliance record after a decree imposes tax-filing duties. Counsel seeking contempt should identify the operative order, document the client’s requested corrective steps, and prove losses with testimony or records that connect penalties to the noncompliance. Counsel resisting contempt needs more than evidence that an agency process is confusing or outside a party’s direct control; the evidence should show what the party tried, why each available route failed, and how the obstacle actually prevented obedience.
The opinion also gives district courts room to enforce the substance of divorce decrees without requiring tax-administration language to be perfect. At the same time, drafting the original decree and any purge condition with precise, action-oriented directions—such as contacting the IRS, reallocating a payment, and cooperating with an accountant—will reduce later disputes about what compliance requires.