Summary 2009 WY 50

Summary of Decision issued April 9, 2009

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

Case Name: Mendoza v. Gonzales

Citation: 2009 WY 50

Docket Number: S-08-0059

Appeal from the District Court of Carbon County, the Honorable Wade E. Waldrip, Judge.

Representing Appellants Mendoza and Cano: William L. Hiser and Kelly N. Heck of Brown & Hiser LLC, Laramie, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee Gonzales: Thomas A. Thompson and Brandon W. Snyder of MacPherson, Kelly & Thompson, LLC, Rawlins, Wyoming.

Facts/Discussion: The matter involves a family dispute over the disposition of certain trust property. Mendoza and Cano claim that their brother Gonzales wrongfully induced them to disclaim their interest in a large portion of the trust property.

Gonzales transferred property owned by the Trust to himself individually so § 4-10-802(b) controlled. The transactions are voidable unless one of the exceptions applies. The only applicable exception is (b)(iv) regarding consent. The record was clear that Mendoza and Cano signed the documents indicating their consent. The Court reviewed whether the district court erred in its finding that Mendoza and Cano were aware of their rights and the material facts surrounding the breach of trust. Both Mendoza and Cano had significant experience working with legal and business documents.
The Court then considered the facts in light of whether the appellants’ consent was obtained by improper conduct by the appellee. Mendoza and Cano did not point to any improper conduct, rather they provided a list of duties that Gonzales breached while acting as trustee. The Court stated the breach of duty arguments were immaterial to the question as the appellants waived their rights to any of the trust assets other than cash. The only alleged breach that may have had bearing on the validity of the appellants’ consent was the alleged breach of the duty to inform and report. However, Mendoza and Cano failed to call the Courts’ attention to any fact that Gonzales deliberately or wrongfully hid.

Conclusion: The Court’s review of the record revealed that the district court’s findings were not clearly erroneous. Gonzales entered into transactions favoring his personal interests over those of Mendoza and Cano but the Court affirmed upholding those transactions because the appellants consented to them in writing. The Court also sustained the district court’s conclusion that the appellants were not wrongfully induced to consent to the transactions or deprived of their ability to understand their rights or the material facts surrounding their consent.

Affirmed.

C.J. Voigt delivered the decision.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/cs4fs2 .

[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.]