Justia Wyoming Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Burt Purcella established a trust into which he transferred his assets, including fifty percent ownership in a business. Purcella named his wife and children as successor trustees. Upon Purcella's death, the successor trustees were to divide the remaining trust assets between two trusts, the family trust and the marital trust. After Purcella's death, Children filed an action against Wife, claiming she breached her fiduciary obligations as trustee by depositing funds the marital trust received from the business into her personal account. The district court entered summary judgment enjoining Wife from depositing the funds into her personal account and finding the parties had agreed that 87.05% of all income received from the business would be allocated to the marital trust and distributed to Wife. The Supreme Court reversed the district court's ruling that Wife was entitled to all income the marital trust received from the business, holding that Wife was entitled to payment of income the marital trust received from the business less any expenses incurred in administering the marital trust. View "Purcella v. Purcella" on Justia Law

Appellants were the personal representatives of the estates of a husband and wife who were killed in a car accident. The accident was caused by a driver who, prior to the accident, had become intoxicated as a result of consuming alcoholic beverages at a bar and a saloon in Wyoming. Appellants filed a wrongful death and negligence complaint against the owners of the bar and saloon. Appellants also sought a judgment declaring Wyo. Stat. 12-8-301, which provides that no person who legally provides alcohol to another person is liable for damages caused by the intoxication of the other person, was unconstitutional if, as a matter of law, the statute provided immunity to Appellees for their conduct. The district court granted Appellees' motion to dismiss on the ground that the Supreme Court had already found the statute to be constitutional. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that (1) in the statute, the word "legally" in the phrase "legally provided" does not encompass municipal ordinances, and (2) the statute violates neither the constitutional doctrine of equal protection nor the constitutional prohibition of special laws. View "Baessler v. Freier" on Justia Law

Appellant, owner of sixty-seven shares of corporate stock of Burnett Livestock Company, appealed the district court's summary judgment that imposed a constructive trust upon those sixty-seven shares for the benefit of several of her relatives including appellees, her aunt and uncle, in accordance with the provisions of a document entitled Agreement for Disposition of Rental and/or Royalty Income, signed on February 20, 1989 by appellant's mother and appellant's grandmother. At issue was whether the evidence submitted supported the parties' respective motions for summary judgment. The court reversed the order granting summary judgment in favor of appellees and remanded for further proceedings holding that there was insufficient evidence on the record to prove the elements of a constructive trust.

Joe's Concrete and Lumber, Inc. ("Joe's Concrete") sought attorneys fees from Concrete Works of Colorado, Inc. ("CWC") after CWC breached its contract with Joe's concrete. At issue was whether the district court properly denied attorneys fees. The court held that Joe's Concrete was entitled to recover its attorneys fees where the attorneys fees were not an element of damages to be proved at trial but were collateral to the merits of the case.