Summary 2008 WY 44

Summary of Decision issued April 11, 2008

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

Case Name: Retz v. Siebrant

Citation: 2008 WY 44

Docket Number: S-07-0023

Appeal from the District Court of Albany County, the Honorable Jeffrey A. Donnell, Judge

Representing Appellants (Plaintiffs): C.M. Aron, Aron and Henning, LLP; and Mattaniah Eytan, Law Office of Mattaniah Eytan.

Representing Appellees (Defendants): Jason M. Tangeman, Jeff Anthony and Philip A. Nicholas of Anthony, Nicholas and Tangeman for Appellees Siebrant and Zarate. Paul J. Hickey, Roger C. Fransen and Brandi L. Monger of Hickey & Evans, LLP for Appellee Graves; Gregory C. Dyekman and Timothy Woznick of Dray, Thomson & Dyekman, PC, for Appellee UW Foundation.

Facts/Discussion: Appellants, Ron Retz, Anne Burwell Williams, Fred Crouter and Beverly Crouter request relief from the district court’s grant of two separate motions for summary judgment the last of which effectively disposed of Appellants’ claims against Appellees William Siebrandt, Salvador Zarate, Charles E. Graves and the University of Wyoming Foundation. Appellants also contested the district court’s denial of a motion to amend the complaint.
Colonel Rogers died in Carmel, California in 2003. He was 96, not married at the time and had no known children. Anne and Ernest Williams are children of two of the Colonel’s sisters. William Siebrandt was his closest companion. They cut off contact with each other several times over the years. The Colonel made a series of generous monetary gifts to Siebrandt over the course of the relationship. The Colonel was meticulous in his estate planning.
Motion to Amend: The Court could not find that the district court abused its discretion in denying Appellants leave to amend the Complaint. The district court found that Appellants Anne and Ernest Williams’ claim to remove Charles Graves as Trustee was a reiteration of an earlier request for injunctive relief. The district court refused to add claims for elder abuse and undue influence noting Appellants made no cogent argument as to why a Wyoming court should have jurisdiction over torts allegedly committed in California. Fred and Beverly Crouter attempted to bring several claims on behalf of their mother Ada Crouter, the Colonel’s long-time friend and companion during his years in Wyoming and Nebraska. They failed to allege any form of consideration for the alleged promise. The claim for conversion had exceeded the statute of limitations.
Summary Judgment: The district court granted summary judgment on all issues in two separate decision letters. Appellants contested the decision on two of the issues.
Contract to Make a Will: The Williams claimed that the Colonel entered into an agreement with their parents to leave all his money to his family when he died in exchange for their assistance in hiding his assets at the time of his divorce. There was no competent evidence to support the allegation. The Court stated it was against public policy to contract to hide assets in order to prevent a court from considering all assets when dividing a marital estate.
Undue Influence: The Court may affirm a summary judgment on any grounds supported by the record. The determinative issue was that Appellants had not raised an issue of material fact as to the validity of any part of the 2002 trust. The Court found that the district court was correct in finding that Appellees met their burden under the summary judgment standard. Appellants failed to make any showing that the Colonel was in a condition that permitted subversion of his will. They failed to show there was activity on the part of Siebrandt or Zarate with respect to the trust instrument. There was no evidence that either of them unduly profited as beneficiary under the trust.
Forgery: Appellants also attacked the 2002 trust on the basis that the Colonel’s signature was a forgery. The signature was notarized. The notary testified explaining her procedure for a jurat and her memory of the event. Appellants offered the report of a forensic document examiner. As the only evidence offered, it was not enough to raise a genuine issue of material fact with respect to the authenticity of a notarized signature.

Holding: The district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Appellants’ request to amend their complaint. The district court properly summarily disposed of Appellants’ claims when they failed to produce enough evidence to raise a genuine issue of material fact on any claim.

Affirmed.

C.J. Voigt delivered the decision.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/55fopm .

[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses the "Universal Citation." It was given an "official" citation when it was issued. You should use this citation whenever you cite the opinion, with a P.3d parallel citation. Please note when you look at the opinion 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 using the Universal Citation form, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library.]