Cross-Border Equitable Contribution: Wyoming Endorses Florida’s 50/50 Presumption for Joint Mortgage Obligors

Commentary on Katya Hutton v. Michael L. Dykes & J. Christopher Dykes, Co-PRs of the Estate of Robert P. Dykes (2025 WY 94)

Introduction

In Hutton v. Dykes the Wyoming Supreme Court confronted an unusual blend of issues: a Florida promissory note and mortgage executed by Wyoming domiciliaries, litigation conducted in a Wyoming probate-related action, and a dispute over who should shoulder an unpaid $100,000 balloon payment after one co-obligor’s death.

The appellant, Katya Hutton, and the decedent, Robert P. Dykes, jointly purchased a Florida duplex in 2021. They signed a note and mortgage “as joint tenants with right of survivorship,” promising—jointly—to make monthly payments plus a $100,000 balloon payment due 7 March 2022. They paid the monthlies but not the balloon. Mr. Dykes died in April 2022, and his sons, Michael and Christopher Dykes, became personal representatives (“PRs”) of the Estate. The seller, SL&L Enterprises, sued only the Estate. The Estate filed a third-party complaint seeking contribution/indemnity from Ms. Hutton, who meanwhile had negotiated a six-month forbearance agreement with SL&L.

After cross-motions for summary judgment and a bench trial limited to “degree and extent of joint liability,” the district court held Hutton liable for exactly one-half of the balloon payment and one-half of attorney’s fees, interest, late fees, and costs. Hutton appealed, insisting that the court misapplied Florida’s doctrine of equitable contribution, that the Estate’s “unclean hands” barred relief, and that equity required the Estate to pay the entire amount. The Supreme Court affirmed.

Summary of the Judgment

Choice-of-Law: The note’s Florida governing-law clause was honored; substantive questions (equitable contribution) were answered using Florida law, while Wyoming procedure governed standards of review.
Equitable Contribution Applies: Florida presumes that joint obligors are equally liable for a common debt unless the instrument says otherwise. Because the note and mortgage were silent on inter-se contribution rights, Florida’s doctrine filled the gap. The Estate, having paid more than its fair share, could seek contribution.
50/50 Allocation Upheld: The district court’s decision to split liability evenly was not an abuse of discretion. Evidence showed a joint investment, joint payments, and survivorship rights; none of Hutton’s equitable defenses overcame the presumption.
Unclean Hands Rejected: Hutton failed to prove the Estate engaged in the kind of egregious, deceitful conduct required under Florida law to invoke the unclean-hands bar.
Contract Language Controls: Because the promissory note unambiguously bound both signers to the balloon payment, the court refused to consider extrinsic evidence of Mr. Dykes’s alleged intent to pay it personally.
Associated Costs Shared: Attorney’s fees, interest, and late fees were part of the “common obligation.” The trial court reasonably halved the fees after an independent “reasonableness” review.

Analysis

Precedents Cited and Their Influence

Shamieh v. HCB Financial Corp., 355 So.3d 1050 (Fla. 1st DCA 2023) – Central precedent on equitable contribution. It articulates Florida’s default 50/50 rule for joint obligors and holds that one co-obligor who pays more than her share may recoup the excess. The Wyoming court relied heavily on Shamieh to characterize the Estate’s right to contribution and to locate attorney’s fees within the common obligation.
National Loan Acquisitions Co. v. Tabernacle Christian Center Ministries, 402 So.3d 1028 (Fla. 4th DCA 2024) plus MTGLQ Investments L.P. v. Moore, 293 So.3d 610 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020) – These “unclean hands” cases define the high bar for denying equitable relief: conduct must be “sneaky,” “deceitful,” or “outrageously bad.” The Supreme Court borrowed this threshold to reject Hutton’s allegations that the PRs’ probate skirmishes amounted to unclean hands.
Brooks v. Green, 993 So.2d 58 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) – Reaffirmed that an unambiguous contract must be enforced as written; used to defeat Hutton’s invitation to look outside the note.
Wyoming procedural authorities (Spence v. Sloan, Holloway v. Hidden Creek Outfitters, and others) – Guided the standard-of-review matrix: clear-error for facts; de-novo for law; abuse-of-discretion for equitable rulings.

Legal Reasoning of the Court

Step 1 – Determine Governing Law. The note’s governing-law clause was enforceable; no Wyoming public-policy conflict existed, so Florida substantive law applied.
Step 2 – Identify Common Obligation. Signing the note and mortgage made Hutton and Dykes co-obligors. The balloon payment was expressly their joint duty. No contractual clause altered intra-party contribution rights.
Step 3 – Apply Florida’s Equitable Contribution Doctrine. Under Shamieh the default presumption is equal liability. The Estate had already paid more than half; equity required Hutton to contribute her 50%.
Step 4 – Address Defenses.
a) Unclean Hands: Allegations of probate friction, withholding personal property, or failure to pay a specific bequest did not constitute the “egregious deceit” necessary.
b) Personal-Obligation Argument: Extrinsic evidence of Mr. Dykes’s alleged promise was inadmissible against an unambiguous note.
c) Disproportionate Benefit Argument: Hutton’s claim that she would end up paying 63 % of the total purchase price was irrelevant; the only issue was the specific unpaid installment.
Step 5 – Associated Costs. Fees and interest fell within the note’s enforcement provisions and thus within the “common burden.” The trial court halved them after a fee-reasonableness review under Wyoming law.

Impact of the Judgment

Conflict-of-Laws Clarity: Reinforces that Wyoming courts will faithfully apply foreign substantive law—even equitable doctrines—when a contract so stipulates, reserving Wyoming law only for procedure.
Equitable Contribution Predictability: Lays down a Wyoming precedent expressly adopting the Florida 50/50 presumption for joint obligors unless altered by contract. Future litigants in Wyoming can cite Hutton when pursuing contribution between co-signers of loans or guaranties governed by foreign law.
Heightened Unclean-Hands Standard: Signals that mere probate hostility or failure to fulfill testamentary promises will rarely bar equitable contribution; concrete, deceitful misconduct is required.
Lender Drafting Implications: Parties wanting something other than 50/50 contribution (e.g., 90/10, waiver of contribution, or indemnity) must write it into the note or a separate agreement.
Estate Administration: Confirms PRs may pursue contribution to protect estate assets and discharge fiduciary duties without fear that aggressive litigation alone constitutes “unclean hands.”

Complex Concepts Simplified

Equitable Contribution: A fairness doctrine allowing one co-debtor who paid more than her portion of a common debt to force the others to reimburse their fair share.
Joint Obligors vs. Joint Tenants: “Joint obligor” describes liability on a contract (the note). “Joint tenant with right of survivorship” describes co-ownership of real property. Here, both statuses existed and reinforced each other.
Unclean Hands: An equitable defense that bars relief to a plaintiff who has acted deceitfully or fraudulently regarding the very transaction in dispute. Florida imposes a very high threshold.
Choice-of-Law Clause: A contractual provision selecting which jurisdiction’s substantive law governs disputes. Courts usually honor it unless it violates strong public policy of the forum state.
Balloon Payment: A large, single payment due at the end (or mid-stream) of a loan schedule, typically paying off a chunk of principal.

Conclusion

Hutton v. Dykes is more than a routine foreclosure-adjacent spat; it is a primer on how Wyoming courts will respect contractual choice-of-law clauses and import foreign equitable doctrines wholesale. The Supreme Court’s emphatic endorsement of Florida’s equitable-contribution framework delivers three takeaways:

Joint signers of a note remain presumptively liable in equal proportions—even if only one is sued and even if personal understandings differ from the written instrument.
Equitable defenses such as unclean hands demand proof of egregious, transaction-specific misconduct; garden-variety probate infighting won’t suffice.
Associated enforcement costs (fees, interest, late charges) are part of the “common burden” unless the governing instrument carves them out.

Practitioners should advise clients to address contribution/indemnification expressly in their loan documents and to understand that survivorship title does not erase contractual liability. Probate fiduciaries, meanwhile, can rely on Hutton as authority to pursue contribution actions without fear that robust litigation tactics alone will forfeit equitable relief.

Cross-Border Equitable Contribution: Wyoming Endorses Florida’s 50/50 Presumption for Joint Mortgage Obligors – A Commentary on Katya Hutton v. Michael & J. Christopher Dykes (2025 WY 94)