Justia Wyoming Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Decedent, as CEO of Corporation, purchased a cell phone retail outlet from Creditor for which Creditor accepted a promissory note from Corporation. Decedent signed the note as personal guarantor but died before completing payments. Two related legal actions followed: a California civil suit and this Wyoming probate action. Creditor filed a breach of contract action in California and a timely claim with Decedent's Estate in the Wyoming action. Creditor, however, failed to bring suit within thirty days after the date the Estate mailed a notice of rejection of the claim as required by Wyo. Stat. Ann. 2-7-718. Creditor then added the Estate as a defendant in the California action. In Wyoming, the probate court ruled that Creditor had not complied with section 2-7-718, that the Estate was not added to the California lawsuit until after the filing window had closed, and that Creditor should not receive equitable relief from strict application of the statute. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err when it declined to provide Creditor equitable relief under Wyo. Stat. Ann. 2-7-703(c) from application of the statute of limitations found in section 2-7-718. View "In re Estate of Graves" on Justia Law

Decedent executed a pour-over will and a revocable inter vivos trust for the intended purpose of disinheriting her surviving Spouse, and thereby effectively destroying his elective share as to the property transferred to the trust. This appeal involved two consolidated cases. The district court granted summary judgment against Spouse in both matters, concluding (1) in the probate matter, the property transferred and held in the trust was not subject to the elective share; and (2) in the related civil action in which Spouse sought $125,000 from the trust as a creditor for work performed during the marriage on a building owned by Decedent and transferred to the trust, the claim was time barred. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court properly granted summary judgment in the probate matter because the property transferred to the Trust was never legally the property of Decedent's estate, and therefore, there was no legal basis for making the property a part of Decedent's estate for purposes of the elective share; and (2) the district court properly found that the failure of Spouse to file his civil complaint against the Estate deprived the court of jurisdiction. View "In re Estate of George" on Justia Law

Ralph and Wayne Platt were two brothers who, together with their siblings, inherited a ranch. Ralph and Wayne jointly owned and operated one half of the ranch, which they placed in the Platt Ranch Trust. After a dispute, Ralph and some siblings (Appellants) filed suit against Wayne and other siblings (Appellees), asserting a breach of trustee's duties and seeking a partition of the ranch. The district court found that Appellants were entitled to part of the estate and appointed three commissioners to make a partition of the property. The district court affirmed the partition of the estate as recommended by the commissioners with two exceptions. Appellants subsequently filed a motion to alter or amend judgment and/or motion for new partition, arguing that the district court did not have the authority to modify the partition recommended by the commissioners. The court denied the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that under the circumstances of this case, the district court was authorized as a matter of law to unilaterally modify the partition made by the commissioners in order to obviate the parties' objections to the report. View "Platt v. Platt" on Justia Law

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

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.

Plaintiffs, Eva D. and Lee J. Kelly, appealed the district court's finding that they exercised undue influence over Robert Lee McNeel and invalidated the trust and will in which Mr. McNeel had named Ms. Kelly as one of two beneficiaries in place of his son. Plaintiffs also appealed the district court's grant, in a separate proceeding, to remove Ms. Kelly as Mr. McNeel's guardian and conservator and appointment of the son to replace her. At issue was whether the district court's finding of undue influence and removal of plaintiff as guardian and conservator of Mr. McNeel's trust was clearly erroneous. The court held that, in light of the circumstances, the district court did not err in its order invalidating the 2005 trust amendment and will and that the district court had the authority to remove plaintiff as guardian conservator upon determining that she was not acting in the best interest of Mr. McNeel.

Appellant Paul Mathewson, grandson of decedent Helen Nielsen, challenges the distribution of her estate. Ms. Nielsen died testate in May, 2008; her daughter Ember Mathewson (Daughter) was named executrix. Appellant is Daughter's son and the decedent's grandson. Daughter and two other siblings were named heirs, and were to receive equal parts of the estate. Prior to a final distribution, Daughter and one of the siblings died. Daughter and her husband had executed a community property agreement in which "upon the death of either [Daughter or her husband], title to all community property â¦[will] vest immediately in fee simple in the survivor." Following Daughter's death, Appellant and some of his other family members filed an application for decree of distribution to Ms. Nielsen's estate; Appellant's father claimed Daughter's share of the Nielsen estate under the terms of the community agreement. Appellant claimed he was the rightful heir to his mother's share of his grandmother's estate since the Nielsen estate had not been probated or distributed at the time of Daughter's death. The circuit court found that the Daughter's share of the Nielsen estate was subject to the community property agreement, ruling in favor of Appellant's father. On appeal, the Supreme Court found that Appellant's request for review was essentially an attempt to re-litigate issues already decided by the lower court. Furthermore, the Court noted Appellant missed the deadline to file his request for review. On the basis that his request was untimely, the Court found it had no jurisdiction to hear Appellant's arguments, and dismissed his appeal.