Summary 2006 WY 105

[SPECIAL NOTE: These opinions use the "Universal Citation." They were given "official" citations when they were issued. You should use these citations whenever you cite these opinions, with a P.3d parallel citation. You will also note when you look at the opinions that all of the paragraphs are numbered. When you pinpoint cite to a quote, you should cite to this paragraph number rather than to any page number. If you need assistance in putting together a citation from this, or any future opinion using the Universal Citation form, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library and we will provide any needed assistance]

Summaries are prepared by Law Librarians and are not official statements of the Wyoming Supreme Court

Case Name: Sherard v. Sherard

Citation: 2006 WY 105

Docket Number: 05-242

Appeal from the District Court of Sheridan County, Honorable John C. Brackley, Judge

Representing Appellants (Plaintiffs): James P. Castberg, Sheridan, Wyoming.

Representing Appellees (Defendants): Kristen L. Cogswell, Sheridan, Wyoming; Shelly A. Cundiff, Dayton, Wyoming.

Date of Decision: August 29, 2006

Issues: Whether the trial court erred in determining that a document entitled "Transfer Document" had not effectively transferred the decedent mother's ownership shares in a Business Trust Organization to the Appellant and that a Quitclaim Deed did constitute a valid conveyance of such shares to Appellees. Whether the trial court erred in granting the motion for judgment as a matter of law on Appellants' claim for fraud.

Holdings: The meaning of a trust instrument is determined by the same rules that govern the interpretation of contracts. The intent is determined from the trust document itself. The interpretation of the language of a trust instrument constitutes a question of law. Where the language used in the trust is unambiguous, the plain provisions of the trust determine its construction and interpretation does not require consideration of evidence. The rule regarding effectuation of transfers of certificates of interest in a business trust is that, where the declaration of trust prescribes the manner in which shares or certificates of interest shall be transferred, there must be a compliance therewith. The trust in the present action provided that a transfer was to be effective only when a new certificate was issued and recorded. It is undisputed that this procedure was not followed. As a result, Appellant did not become the certificate holder of the Trust. Appellants' challenge concerning the validity of the Quitclaim Deed is premised upon the perceived rights as certificate holder to the property of the Trust. Having determined that the Transfer Document was invalid and that Appellant was not a certificate holder of the Trust, the district court did not err in confirming the validity of the deed.

Appellants had the burden of proving fraud by clear and convincing evidence. The elements of fraud are: (1) the defendant made a false representation intended to induce action by the plaintiff; (2) the plaintiff reasonably believed the representation to be true; and (3) the plaintiff relied on the false representation and suffered damages. Fraud will not be imputed to any party when the facts and circumstances out of which it is alleged to arise are consistent with honesty and purity of intention. It will never be presumed. In the present action, a review of the record reveals a complete absence of any evidence to support the claim of fraud even when reviewed in the light most favorable to Appellants. Appellant's fraud claim was premised upon his claim to be the owner of fifty trust certificate units. Appellant failed to satisfy his burden in that regard and presented no evidence that a new trust certificate had been issued to him and recorded as mandated by the express provisions of the Trust. In addition, Appellants presented no evidence of any false representation made by any Appellee which was intended to induce action by either Appellant. There is no evidence in the record that either Appellant relied upon any representation made by any of the Appellees. The undisputed evidence establishes that none of the Appellees were aware of the Transfer Document until after Appellant presented the document at a family meeting subsequent to their mother's death. We find no error in the district court's decision granting judgment as a matter of law on Appellants' fraud claim.

Affirmed.

J. Burke delivered the opinion for the court.