Justia Wyoming Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

From Lilyanna Knudson’s birth until Ronald Scherer’s (Decedent) death, Knudson believed and considered the Decedent to be her father. After learning that he was not, Knudson filed a petition seeking a determination that she was the Decedent’s heir. Specifically, Knudson argued that, pursuant to the judicially-created doctrine of equitable adoption, she was the daughter and heir of the Decedent. The district court dismissed Knudson’s petition, concluding that Wyoming law does not recognize equitable adoption and that equitable adoption would be contrary to Wyoming’s probate code. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, based on the Court’s interpretation of Wyoming’s probate code, Wyoming does not recognize the doctrine of equitable adoption, and therefore, Knudson was not an heir. View "In re Estate of Scherer" on Justia Law

Evelyn Carlsen, a settlor of the 1999 Carlsen Family Living Trust who also served as trustee, amended the trust on two separate occasions before she died. After Mrs. Carlsen’s death, Appellant Catherine Meyer, a beneficiary of the trust who stood to receive less because of the amendments, brought an action against Appellee, the successor trustee, challenging the validity of the amendments. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Appellee. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court (1) did not err in concluding that the amendments were valid because their terms did not constitute a repayment of a debt, which might invoke the Statute of Frauds; and (2) properly determined that there were no genuine issues of material fact with regard to Appellant’s claim that Mrs. Carlsen was unduly influenced to amend the trust by other beneficiaries. View "Meyer v. Miller " on Justia Law

Seventy-six-year-old William suffered from a lifelong mental disability. William’s brother Robert and sister Jeanne were the sole trustees of a trust established by William’s mother to support William. Because Williams had fallen prey to financial scammers, Robert and Jeanne took steps to prevent William from trust money. Thereafter, Robert petitioned for appointment as William’s guardian, and Jeanne cross-petitioned seeking to be appointed as William’s guardian and conservator. The district court dismissed Robert’s petition as a sanction for his failure to appear at a pretrial conference and temporarily appointed Jeanne as William’s guardian and conservator. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court properly dismissed Robert’s guardianship petition; (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in disposing of Robert’s motions to submit the case to mediation and to quash the proposed order dismissing Robert’s petition; and (3) the district judge did not abuse his discretion in denying Robert’s petition to disqualify the presiding judge. View "In re Guardianship & Conservatorship of Bratton" on Justia Law

In 2001, Appellant moved into Decedent’s home at Decedent’s request, where he lived and cared for Decedent until Decedent’s death in 2010. After Decedent’s death, Appellant filed a creditor’s claim against Decedent’s estate, seeking compensation for the care and services he provided. Defendants, the co-administrators of the estate, denied Appellant’s claim. Appellant subsequently brought an action against Defendants. The district court granted summary judgment to the estate. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in finding no question of material fact existed and that Appellant failed as a matter of law on his claims for implied-in-fact contract, promissory estoppel, and unjust enrichment. View "Symons v. Heaton" on Justia Law

After Joan Marusich died, the State ex rel. Department of Health, Office of Healthcare Financing/Equalitycare (Department) filed a lien against the home Joan owned as tenants by the entirety with her husband, William Marusich, who predeceased Joan. The Department filed the lien to recover the cost of Medicaid benefits paid on behalf of William. Joan's Estate filed a petition against the Department to remove a false lien. The district court granted summary judgment against the Estate on the validity of the lien. After the district court entered a final judgment on the amount of the lien, the Estate appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court correctly granted summary judgment upholding the Department's lien; and (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the Estate's motion to amend the petition. View "Estate of Marusich v. State ex rel. Dep't of Health, Office of Healthcare Fin./Equalitycare" on Justia Law

Petitioners petitioned to be appointed permanent guardians of their elderly uncle, Thomas Lankford. The district court dismissed the guardianship petition after finding Petitioners were not qualified to serve as guardians because their potential to inherit from Lankford created a disqualifying conflict of interest. Petitioners appealed, asserting (1) the district court erred in finding a conflict of interest, and (2) in the alternative, the guardianship conflict waiver statute, which allows a court of waive conflicts but limits that authority to conflicts of a spouse, adult child, parent, or sibling of a ward, violated their due process and equal protection rights. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in finding a conflict of interest; and (2) Petitioners' constitutional claims were not properly before the Court. View "Utley v. Lankford" on Justia Law

While Mark and Elizabeth Dowell were still married, Mark created an irrevocable life insurance trust (ILIT) naming Elizabeth as is primary beneficiary and their two children as contingent beneficiaries. After the couple divorced, Mark filed a petition to modify the trust, contending that he did not need Elizabeth's consent to modify because she had relinquished her beneficial interest in the property settlement agreement incorporated into the divorce decree. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Mark. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the parties' divorce degree did not divest Elizabeth of her status as the primary beneficiary of the ILIT as a matter of law. Remanded with instructions to grant Elizabeth's motion for summary judgment. View "Dowell v. Dowell" on Justia Law

These consolidated appeals stemmed from the Redland family's dispute over ranch property and operations. Two of the appeals related to real property that some of the Redland children claimed their father, Robert Redland, agreed to place in a family trust. The district court granted Robert partial summary judgment, holding that the claims were barred by the statute of limitations and statute of frauds. A bench trial was held on the remaining issues. The trial court ruled against Robert on his two sons' unjust enrichment claims for improvements they had made to the disputed trust properties and also ruled against Robert on his counterclaim against another child and his wife for a partnership interest in their cattle operation. In the remaining appeal, Robert appealed the trial court's rulings on the unjust enrichment and partnership claims. The Supreme Court (1) reversed the grant of summary judgment, holding that disputed issues of material fact existed on the questions of whether the Redland children's property claims were barred by the state of limitations or statute of frauds; and (2) affirmed the district court's ruling on the unjust enrichment claims and the partnership claims. Remanded. View "Redland v. Redland" on Justia Law

After a hearing, the district court entered an order stating that Appellant concealed, embezzled, conveyed away and/or disposed of monies and other property of John Hibsman, Jr.'s estate and finding prima facie evidence of the right of the estate's personal representative to recover an amount "not less than $137,566." At issue on appeal was whether the Supreme Court had jurisdiction to hear Appellant's appeal. The Court dismissed the appeal, determining it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal because (1) the order from which Appellant took his appeal was made in a "special proceeding" as contemplated by Wyo. R. App. P. 1.05; but (2) no substantial right of Appellant's was affected by the court's decision, as the proceeding appealed here merely determined a prima facie case that the personal representative could initiate litigation to determine if there was a wrongful taking of at least that amount of money. View "Hibsman v. Mullen" on Justia Law

As a beneficiary of a trust created by her grandfather, Plaintiff-Appellant Courtney Evans brought an action against the trustee, Peter F. Moyer, for an accounting and distribution of income. The district court generally ruled in Mr. Moyer's favor, and Plaintiff appealed arguing that the district court's interpretation of the trust was erroneous and Mr. Moyer's accounting was insufficient. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in its interpretation of the trust. Accordingly, the Court affirmed. View "Evans v. Moyer" on Justia Law