Summary 2010 WY 71

Summary of Decision issued June 1, 2010

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

Case Name: Comeau v. Nash

Citation: 2010 WY 71

Docket Number: S-09-0075

Appeal from the District Court of Uinta County, the Honorable Dennis L. Sanderson, Judge.

Representing Comeau: Sharon M. Rose of Lavery & Rose, PC, Evanston, Wyoming.

Representing Nash: A. Anthony Vehar of Vehar Law Firm, Evanston, Wyoming.

Facts/Discussion: Comeau challenged the district court’s factual findings and legal conclusions to the effect that Comeau breached a fiduciary duty he owed to Kenneth McGrath (McGrath). McGrath is deceased and Comeau is one of his heirs.

The principal parties, Comeau and Nash, were once married to each other. Nash is McGrath’s granddaughter. Comeau and McGrath remained close after Comeau and Nash’s divorce. Eventually, McGrath came to live with Comeau and his wife as his health deteriorated. Comeau’s wife was a nurse experienced in caring for the elderly. McGrath lived modestly so his family did not know of his actual wealth (approximately $300,000 in cash and he owned property as well). By the time of McGrath’s death, Comeau had come into possession of almost all of McGrath’s assets except for land in Florida. Comeau’s possession did not reflect the testamentary intentions evinced by McGrath’s last Will and Testament.
Comeau had been appointed as McGrath’s guardian after his doctor determined he was unable to make his own determinations and sign his own authorizations and forms.
The Court has held that courts should zealously scrutinize deed transactions between people in confidential relationships. The Court made note of McGrath’s experience as a banker. Because McGrath lived with and was dependent upon the Comeaus, the district court found that they had the opportunity to “control” McGrath. The district court held that Nash’s evidence proved an opportunity to control; a condition permitting subversion; activity on the part of Comeau and a benefit to Comeau. To the extent that Comeau contended that McGrath had made a gift of his assets to him, the district court concluded that Comeau failed to bear his burden of proof.

Conclusion: The district court’s finding that McGrath was susceptible to undue influence was not clearly erroneous. The district court’s finding that Comeau exercised actual control and undue influence over McGrath was not clearly erroneous. The district court’s conclusion that Comeau breached a fiduciary duty was not clearly erroneous

Affirmed.

J. Hill delivered the decision.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/2e6axg8 .

[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 using the Universal Citation format, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library.]