Evans v. Moyer, 2012 WY 111

Courtney Evans, beneficiary of the Finlay Family Trust, sues trustee Peter Moyer for an accounting and income distributions.
Upon settlor Finlay's death, the trust split into two: the Joan Henriette Finlay Trust and the Finlay Family Trust, with provisions affecting GST tax and prohibitions on principal distributions during the father Bruce Evans's lifetime.
The Fifth Amendment divided the Finlay Family Trust shares among grandchildren Courtney and Dillon and allowed discretionary use of principal to ensure support, health, and education; the Sixth Amendment addressed GST tax allocation to Pamela Mitchell.
The district court ordered accounting clarifications, ruled on distribution of income and principal, and ultimately held the trust no longer subject to GST tax and that Evans was not entitled to quarterly income distributions; it also denied attorney fees andDiscovery requests.
Evans appealed multiple district court orders; the case involves issues of trust interpretation, distribution rights, accounting sufficiency, trustee removal, attorney fees, and discovery, with the appellate court affirming the district court.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Jurisdiction and timeliness of appeal	Evans argues timely notice of appeal from final orders.	Moyer asserts untimely notice or tolling issues.	Appeal proper after final October 2011 order; earlier orders were interlocutory and did not toll the time.
Interpretation of the Finlay Family Trust	Evans seeks quarterly income distributions and strict interpretation.	Trust language permits convenient installments and discretionary principal distributions; Sixth Amendment applicability debated.	The court concluded distributions may be in convenient installments, not quarterly, and Evans not entitled to quarterly payments.
GST tax and Sixth Amendment applicability	GST tax affects beneficiary distributions; Evaṇs argues misapplication.	Pamela received distributions when GST tax applied; Evans not entitled to those years.	GST tax allocation to Pamela was appropriate; Evans later became eligible when GST tax no longer applied.
Removal of trustee	Moyer should be removed for alleged mismanagement.	Court has equitable discretion not to remove; findings support continued trusteeship.	District court did not abuse discretion in not removing Moyer.
Attorney fees and discovery	Fees should be awarded; discovery should be allowed.	American rule disfavors fees; discovery was not required for legal interpretation of an unambiguous trust.	No attorney fees awarded; discovery properly limited; interpretation of an unambiguous trust is decided as a matter of law.

Woods v. Woods, 36 P.3d 1142 (Wyo. 2001) (interim accounting not final; district court retains authority to complete final accounting)
Mathewson v. Estate of Nielsen, 252 P.3d 958 (Wy. 2011) (jurisdiction and tolling of appeal deadlines; finality rules)
Ragsdale v. Hartford Underwriters Ins. Co., 169 P.3d 78 (Wy. 2007) ( Rule 59(e) standards and tolling time for appeals; reconsideration inappropriate for reliti-gation)
Witowski v. Roosevelt, 199 P.3d 1072 (Wy. 2009) (final judgment timing; outstanding attorney fees do not necessarily delay appeal)
Painovich v. Painovich, 216 P.3d 501 (Wy. 2009) (notice of appeal requirements; accuracy in identifying appealable orders)