320 P.3d 1115
Wyo.2014Background
- Davis Foundation and Amy Davis donated the Y Cross Ranch and related LLC interests to two university foundations in 1997, to support CSU/UW via the MOA; the donation included LLC membership interests, real property, cash, and equipment, and a conservation easement was granted to The Nature Conservancy.
- The MOA required an operating agreement for the LLC and a five-member management committee, including reps from each foundation, two deans or their designees, and a Davis Foundation appointee; Amy Davis was to serve as a non-paid consultant to the Management Committee for seven years.
- In 2011 the university foundations planned to sell the Ranch; the Davises sued seeking rescission and a constructive or implied trust, seeking to enjoin the sale and asserting standing to enforce the MOA.
- The district court granted dismissal for lack of standing, holding the donation was a gift (not an implied trust) and that only the attorney general could enforce a charitable gift; the court did not apply Wyoming’s Uniform Trust Code or find donor standing.
- The Davises timely appealed the dismissal; the issue centered on whether the MOA created an implied trust and whether the Davises had standing to enforce the MOA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the MOA create an implied trust enforcement right? | Davis Interests contend implied trust (resulting) enforces donor intent. | University Foundations argue MOA shows a gift, no implied trust; no donor standing. | MOA did not create an implied trust; gifts to charities are enforceable by attorney general, not donors. |
| Do the Davis Interests have standing to enforce the gift? | As settlor with committee appointment, Davises claim standing to enforce. | Common law limits standing to enforce charitable gifts to the attorney general; committee role does not confer standing. | Only the attorney general has standing to enforce a charitable gift; Davises lack standing. |
| Was the management-committee appointment a waiver of standing or a separate argument? | Appointment to the committee gives personal stake enabling enforcement. | No waiver of standing; argument not preserved; committee role cannot override standing rule. | Waived/unsupported; does not create donor standing; district court correct on standing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Town of Cody v. Buffalo Bill Mem'l Ass'n, 64 Wyo. 468, 196 P.2d 369 (Wy. 1948) (implied trust to enforce charitable-use intents in gifts to charities (for context))
- Carl J. Herzog Found., Inc. v. Univ. of Bridgeport, 243 Conn. 1, 699 A.2d 995 (Conn. 1997) (common law donor/enforcement rights; standing)
- Meima v. Broemmel, 2005 WY 87, 117 P.3d 429 (Wy. 2005) (general rule: no resulting trust where gift aligns with other transaction)
- Dallas Dome Wyo. Oil Fields Co. v. Brooder, 55 Wyo. 109, 97 P.2d 311 (Wy. 1938) (trusts and implied trusts; limits on resulting trusts)
- Hicks v. Dowd, 2007 WY 74, 157 P.3d 914 (Wy. 2007) (statutory expansion of enforceable express charitable trusts; not donor standing for gifts)