Catherine Meyer, as Beneficiary of the 1999 Carlsen Family Living Trust, 330 P.3d 263

In 1999 Mr. and Mrs. Carlsen created a revocable family living trust naming their five daughters as equal remainder beneficiaries; Mrs. Carlsen retained broad amendment powers and later became sole trustee/settlor.
Catherine Meyer (Appellant) had persuaded Mrs. Carlsen to invest ~$40,000 with a broker friend; the investment fell to ~$20,000 and Mrs. Carlsen believed Meyer was responsible for the loss.
Mrs. Carlsen executed a First Amendment (Feb 27, 2009) stating Catherine “shall pay to the Trust the sum of $20,000, an amount owed by her to my Trust.”
After medical visits and a hospitalization (including a perfect 31/31 Mini-Mental exam), Mrs. Carlsen executed a Second Amendment (Aug 17, 2009) providing that Catherine must pay $20,000 or the successor trustee may reduce Catherine’s share by $16,000; the second revoked the first.
Mrs. Carlsen died in March 2012; successor trustee Sara Miller defended the amendments. The district court granted summary judgment to the trustee; Catherine appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the amendments attempt to collect a "debt" and thus violate the Statute of Frauds	Meyer: The amendments impose liability to repay $20,000 without a signed writing by her, triggering the Statute of Frauds	Trustee: The provision reflects settlor s discretionary reallocation for a perceived loss, not an enforceable debt; settlor may amend trust as she wished	Held: Not a debt; amendments valid. Statute of Frauds inapplicable.
Whether genuine factual disputes exist that Mrs. Carlsen was unduly influenced by her other daughters	Meyer: Daughters consulted, assisted with notes, visited during illness, and benefited financially, creating a material disputed issue of undue influence	Trustee: Affidavits/depositions (attorney, physician, daughters) show Mrs. Carlsen was competent, acted alone with counsel, and there is no evidence daughters subverted her will	Held: No genuine issue of material fact; insufficient clear proof of undue influence; summary judgment for trustee affirmed.

Evans v. Moyer, 282 P.3d 1203 (Wyo. 2012) (trust interpretation governed by settlor intent; contract rules apply)
Matter of Estate of Brosius, 683 P.2d 663 (Wyo. 1984) (settlor/testator has absolute right to dispose of property if legally qualified)
Parkhurst v. Boykin, 94 P.3d 450 (Wyo. 2004) (de novo review for statute of frauds questions)
Estate of Dahlke ex rel. Jubie v. Dahlke, 319 P.3d 116 (Wyo. 2014) (standard of review and summary judgment articulation)
Kelly v. McNeel, 250 P.3d 1105 (Wyo. 2011) (undue influence voids trust only where settlor's freedom of choice is vitiated)
Retz v. Siebrandt, 181 P.3d 84 (Wyo. 2008) (elements plaintiff must prove to establish undue influence)
In re Estate of McLean, 99 P.3d 999 (Wyo. 2004) (affidavits from attorney and physician can support summary judgment on capacity/undue influence)
Kibbee v. First Interstate Bank, 242 P.3d 973 (Wyo. 2010) (independent competent advice is relevant to undue influence analysis)