Summary 2012 WY 154

Summary of Decision December 13, 2012

Justice Davis delivered the opinion for the Court. Reversed and Remanded.

Case Name: IN THE MATTER OF THE MODIFICATION OF THE MARK E. DOWELL IRREVOCABLE TRUST #1, dated the 16th of May, 2000: ELIZABETH L. DOWELL v. MARK E. DOWELL

Docket Number: S-12-0098

URL: http://www.courts.state.wy.us/Opinions.aspx

Appeal from the District Court of Natrona County, Honorable David B. Park, Judge.

Representing Appellant: Ann M. Rochelle of Rochelle Law Offices, P.C., Casper, Wyoming; Douglas McLaughlin of Law Office of Douglas R. McLaughlin, Casper, Wyoming. Argument by Ms. Rochelle.

Representing Appellee: Judith Studer and Tassma A. Powers of Schwartz, Bon, Walker & Studer, LLC, Casper, Wyoming. Argument by Ms. Studer.

Date of Decision: December 13, 2012

Facts: While he and Appellant Elizabeth (Betsy) Dowell were still married, Appellee Dr. Mark Dowell created an irrevocable life insurance trust (ILIT) naming Ms. Dowell as its primary beneficiary and their two children as contingent beneficiaries. The couple divorced five years later. Six years after the divorce, Dr. Dowell filed a petition to modify the trust, in which he contended that he did not need to obtain Ms. Dowell’s consent to modify because she had relinquished her beneficial interest in the property settlement agreement incorporated into their divorce decree. The district court agreed. Ms. Dowell appealed from the district court’s order granting summary judgment to Dr. Dowell.

Issues: Did Ms. Dowell waive her expectancy in an irrevocable life insurance trust by consenting to the terms of a property settlement agreement which was incorporated in the parties’ decree of divorce?

Holdings: Because the Dowell’s divorce decree falls short of the Cellers benchmark, it cannot be said to have divested Ms. Dowell of her status as the primary beneficiary of the ILIT as a matter of law. Accordingly, the Court reversed the summary judgment granted to Dr. Dowell to the extent it determined that Ms. Dowell was not a qualified beneficiary whose consent was necessary to permit the trial court to judicially modify the ILIT. The Court also remanded and instructed the district court to grant Ms. Dowell’s summary judgment motion on that issue, as the record before the Court as a matter of law does not reflect an adequate waiver of her status as a qualified beneficiary of the ILIT.

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

[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. You will also note when you look at the opinion that all of the paragraphs are numbered. When you need to provide a pinpoint citation to a quote the universal portion of the citation will use that paragraph number. The pinpoint citation in the P.3d portion will need to have the reporter 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]

Summary 2007 WY 74

Summary of Decision issued May 9, 2007

[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses "Universal Citation." It was given an "official" citation when issued. You should use this citation whenever you cite the opinion, with a P.3d parallel citation. You will also note that all of the paragraphs are numbered. When you need to provide a pinpoint citation to a quote, the universal portion of the citation will use that paragraph number. The pinpoint citation in the P.3d portion will need to have the reporter 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.]

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

Case Name: Hicks and Pronghorn Publishing, Board of Trustees of the Scenic Preserve Trust v. Dowd and Dowd; Board of Johnson County Commissioners

Citation: 2007 WY 74

Docket Number: 06-2

Representing Appellants (Plaintiffs): Dennis M. Kirven of Kirven and Kirven, PC, Buffalo, Wyoming.

Representing Appellees (Defendants Fred L. and Linda S. Dowd): Tom C. Toner of Yonkee & Toner, LLP, Sheridan, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee Board of Johnson County Commissioners: Greg L. Goddard, Deputy County Attorney, Buffalo, Wyoming.

Issue: Appellants presented 6 issues but the Court focused on the issue of standing: Whether Plaintiffs had standing to enforce the Scenic Preserve Trust.

Facts/Discussion: The case arose from a conservation easement established in 1993 on Meadowood Ranch in Johnson County.
Standing to enforce a charitable trust: The district court found the Scenic Preserve Trust (Trust) was a charitable trust. The Court agreed and after a review of the case concluded the action was one seeking to enforce the terms of the Trust. After discussing the common law of trusts, the Uniform Trust Code, Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 4-10-110(d) and § 4-10-406(c), the Court concluded that a charitable trust may be enforced by a settler, the attorney general or a qualified beneficiary of the trust. Appellants’ only benefit from enforcement was that shared by other members of the public so they were not qualified beneficiaries and therefore lacked standing to enforce the terms of the Trust.
The Attorney General’s role: At the time the Attorney General declined to participate in the case, the district court had already ruled that Appellants had standing to pursue the action. Given that ruling, it was understandable the Attorney General allowed the private litigants to pursue the litigation. Given the Court’s holding that Appellants did not have standing, the Attorney General now has the opportunity to reassess his position.
Matters of great public interest and importance: Appellants’ arguments were not meaningfully developed. The “great public interest or importance” exception must be applied with caution where strict standards are applied. In the instant case, the Court concluded it did not qualify.
Public meetings law: Assuming that Appellants had standing to pursue the issue, they did not provide authority to support their position that the Trust was a subagency of the Board. The Board took its actions at a regularly scheduled public meeting, and the Court agreed with the district court that no violation of the public meetings law occurred.

Holding: The Court concluded the instant action was one to enforce the Scenic Preserve Trust. Appellants did not meet the definition of “qualified beneficiary” and therefore lacked standing to enforce the terms of the Trust.

Affirmed.

J. Hill delivered the decision.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/2c6zly .