Clyde v. Snell, Trustee of the Imogene Snell Revocable Trust Dated November 16, 1993 v. William R. Snell
2016 WY 49
| Wyo. | 2016Background
- Imogene executed a revocable family trust in 1993 naming herself and Clyde V. Snell as co‑trustees; the trust chose Arkansas law. Imogene died in 2003 and the trust became irrevocable. William and Allen are remainder beneficiaries; Clyde is sole trustee and current principal beneficiary.
- After co‑trustee replacement and deaths, Clyde remained sole trustee in Wyoming; in 2013 he proposed terminating the trust and dividing assets between his sons.
- William discovered a >$200,000 decline in an Edward D. Jones account value, requested an accounting, and sued for trust records and judicial supervision.
- The district court, applying Arkansas law, ordered in camera production of certain records, reviewed them, found disclosure reasonable, and entered an order directing production to William and stating it granted summary judgment for him.
- The trial court sealed the in camera materials; it also erroneously characterized its order as resolving all issues. Clyde appealed; the Wyoming Supreme Court held the order was interlocutory but converted the appeal into a writ of review to decide whether William, a remainder beneficiary, is entitled to an accounting under Arkansas law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (William) | Defendant's Argument (Clyde) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court's order was appealable | The order resolving access to records is final | The order is interlocutory and not appealable | Not appealable; interlocutory, so court converted appeal to writ of review |
| Whether appellate court should convert appeal to writ and review interlocutory order | Immediate review will materially advance the case | No specific counterargument given to conversion | Court exercised discretion to convert and grant writ due to controlling legal question and efficiency |
| Whether Arkansas law (statute/ATC) requires trustee reporting for this pre‑2005 irrevocable trust | William: even if ATC §28‑73‑813 inapplicable, common law/Restatement and Arkansas precedent entitle beneficiaries to necessary information | Clyde: No duty absent express trust provision requiring accounting | Held: Under Arkansas common law as reflected in Restatement §172/§173 and Arkansas precedent, a vested remainder beneficiary is entitled to an accounting when reasonably necessary to protect rights or redress breach |
| Whether remainder beneficiary (no present distribution right) can compel accounting | William: vested remainder interest permits accounting to enforce rights | Clyde: remainder beneficiaries lack present rights and thus no accounting absent express term | Held: Remainder beneficiaries can compel accounting; right exists at common law and under Arkansas authorities cited |
Key Cases Cited
- Salem v. Lane Processing Trust, 37 S.W.3d 664 (Ark. Ct. App. 2001) (applied Restatement §173; denied accounting where scope unreasonable and no shown need to redress breach)
- Bailey v. Delta Trust & Bank, 198 S.W.3d 506 (Ark. 2004) (revocable trust becomes irrevocable on settlor's death)
- Jacob v. Davis, 738 A.2d 904 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1999) (comprehensive discussion: vested remainder beneficiary entitled to accounting)
- Shriners Hospitals v. Smith, 385 S.E.2d 617 (Va. 1989) (remainder beneficiary entitled to accounting after settlor's death)
- Buchbinder v. Bank of America, N.A., 30 S.W.3d 707 (Ark. 2000) (Arkansas courts’ reliance on Restatement authorities in trust disputes)