374 P.3d 1236
Wyo.2016Background
- Imogene created 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.
- After co-trustee changes, Clyde remained sole trustee and sole current beneficiary; in 2013 he proposed terminating the family trust and dividing assets between the sons.
- William discovered a >$200,000 decline in an Edward D. Jones account and requested trust records and an accounting; Clyde resisted and the district court ordered limited in-camera production and later directed release of certain materials to William.
- The district court entered an order (later called nunc pro tunc) granting summary judgment to William and declaring the matter resolved; Clyde appealed. Wyoming Supreme Court held the order was interlocutory but converted the appeal into a writ of review to address the legal issue.
- Legal question: whether, under Arkansas law (per the trust’s choice-of-law clause), a remainder beneficiary with no present distribution right may compel a trustee to account where the trust is silent on reporting obligations.
- Court concluded Arkansas common law (via Restatement authorities and Arkansas precedent) entitles a vested remainder beneficiary to an accounting when reasonably necessary to protect or enforce trust rights; ordered immediate release of the sealed records and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Appealability of district court order | William: order final because it resolved access to requested records | Clyde: order not final/appealable | Order was interlocutory and not appealable (court converted appeal to writ of review) |
| Whether Supreme Court should convert appeal to writ | Clyde sought review; conversion appropriate to resolve controlling legal question promptly | (implicit) should dismiss for lack of jurisdiction | Court exercised discretion to convert notice of appeal to petition for writ and granted it |
| Whether Arkansas law governs entitlement to accounting | William accepted Arkansas choice-of-law and argued Arkansas law permits accounting | Clyde disputed, but primarily argued no duty absent express trust term | Court applied Arkansas law per choice-of-law clause |
| Whether remainder beneficiary (William) may compel accounting when trust silent | William: vested remainder beneficiary entitled to information reasonably necessary to protect rights | Clyde: no duty to report absent express trust provision; remainder beneficiary lacks present rights | Held: Arkansas common law (informed by Restatement) permits a vested remainder beneficiary to compel an accounting reasonable to protect/enforce rights; ordered release of records and remanded for further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Salem v. Lane Processing Trust, 37 S.W.3d 664 (Ark. Ct. App. 2001) (analyzing beneficiary’s right to an accounting and applying Restatement guidance)
- Shriners Hospitals for Crippled Children v. Smith, 385 S.E.2d 617 (Va. 1989) (remainder beneficiary entitled to accounting after settlor’s death)
- Jacob v. Davis, 738 A.2d 904 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1999) (comprehensive discussion supporting remainder beneficiary’s right to an accounting)
- Bailey v. Delta Trust & Bank, 198 S.W.3d 506 (Ark. 2004) (revocable trust becomes irrevocable upon settlor’s death)
- Eddy v. First Wyoming Bank, N.A. – Lander, 713 P.2d 228 (Wyo. 1986) (limits on nunc pro tunc relief)