Dowell v. Dowell, 2012 WY 154

Dr. Dowell created the Mark E. Dowell Irrevocable Trust No. One (ILIT) in 2000, naming Dowell as primary beneficiary and children as contingent beneficiaries.
About 18 months later, ILIT beneficiary designations changed to make the ILIT the sole beneficiary of the related policies.
The Dowells divorced in 2005 and a property settlement agreement was incorporated into the divorce decree, detailing each party’s rights to revocable trusts and related assets.
Paragraphs 12(a) and 12(c) in the decree address inheritance and treatment of the parties as beneficiaries; paragraph 7(d) requires funding the ILIT for the children.
In 2011, Dr. Dowell petitioned to modify the ILIT under Wyoming law, arguing Dowell relinquished her ILIT interest, and the district court granted summary judgment for Dowell.
The Wyoming Supreme Court reversed, found the decree ambiguous, and remanded to grant Dowell summary judgment on the waiver issue.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Waiver of ILIT expectancy by divorce decree	Dowell argues the decree excluded her ILIT interest	Dowell contends decree unambiguously divested her interest	Decree ambiguous; remand to grant Dowell summary judgment on waiver

Cellers v. Adami, 216 P.3d 1134 (Wyoming 2009) (requires clear language to waive a spouse's interest in an account or trust)
O'Donnell v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Wyoming, 76 P.3d 308 (Wyoming 2008) (contract ambiguity and extrinsic evidence limitations in summary judgment)
Mullinnix LLC v. HKB Royalty Trust, 126 P.3d 909 (Wyoming 2006) (extrinsic evidence cannot supply new contract terms)
Rehnberg v. Hirshberg, 64 P.3d 115 (Wyoming 2003) (contract interpretation with ambiguity rules)
Knight v. TCB Const. & Design, LLC, 248 P.3d 178 (Wyoming 2011) (contextual evidence may clarify contract language)
Lindsey v. Harriet, 255 P.3d 873 (Wyoming 2011) (intermediate appellate review of cross-motions for summary judgment)