## Facts

- Leon L. Oedekoven and Auguste Gloria Oedekoven divorced in 1969.
- Before entry of the divorce decree, the parties filed a written property settlement agreement in the district court.
- The divorce decree stated that the property settlement agreement was “ratified and confirmed in all respects.”
- The decree did not set out the agreement’s terms and did not expressly order either party to perform the agreement.
- In 1973–1974, Auguste sought an order to show cause alleging Leon failed to pay $1,950 due under the property settlement agreement.
- The district court held Leon in contempt for failure to comply with the divorce decree and allowed him to purge contempt by paying $1,950 within 30 days.
- Leon appealed, challenging whether contempt was a proper enforcement mechanism.

## Issues

1. Whether contempt may be used to enforce payment obligations in a property settlement agreement when the divorce decree merely “ratifies and confirms” the agreement without expressly ordering performance.
2. Whether nonpayment under such an agreement constitutes a violation of the divorce decree sufficient to support a contempt finding.

## Decision

- The Wyoming Supreme Court reversed the contempt order.
- The court held that a decree that only ratifies and confirms a property settlement agreement, without ordering performance, does not make the agreement enforceable by contempt.
- The court concluded it was fundamental reversible error to hold Leon in contempt under these circumstances, even absent objection.
- The court indicated the obligation could be pursued, if at all, through contract remedies, potentially within the same case file or by separate action.

## Legal Principles

- Contempt is available to enforce a property settlement obligation only when the decree distinctly orders performance; mere approval or ratification is not an enforceable command.
- If a decree approves or references a property settlement agreement but does not incorporate it as a court order, breach of the agreement is not a violation of the decree and is not contempt.
- Duties arising from a non-incorporated property settlement agreement remain contractual and must be enforced through contract-based remedies rather than coercive contempt sanctions.
- Concerns about using contempt to compel payment of a contractual debt counsel against treating nonpayment as contempt when no clear court order has been violated.

## Conclusion

The court held that a divorce decree’s ratification and confirmation of a property settlement agreement, without an express directive to perform, leaves the parties’ obligations contractual and not enforceable by contempt; the contempt order for nonpayment was therefore reversed.


Oedekoven v. Oedekoven, 538 P.2d 1292 (Wyo. 1975)