446 P.3d 705
Wyo.2019Background
- Bruce Evertson created a dynasty trust in 2012 holding ~2,300 acres (the Ranch); Evertson Fiduciary Management (EFM) is trustee; Bruce died in 2014.
- EFM petitioned the Wyoming district court for instructions confirming its authority to "decant" trust property and for approval to split the Ranch into two new "Decanter Trusts": one (Watts parcel) for Edward and his descendants, the other for Darla, Julie, and Julie’s descendants.
- EFM asserted the Trust was underfunded, that decanting would preserve settlor intent, and relied on broad distribution and division powers in the Trust Agreement plus Wyoming’s Uniform Trustee Powers Act.
- Darla and Julie supported the decanting; Edward opposed, disputing material facts (intent of settlor, whether the Trust is uneconomic, alleged appraisal errors, and potential fiduciary breaches) and sought an accounting.
- EFM moved for judgment on the pleadings (analogous to W.R.C.P. 12(c)). The district court both held EFM had general statutory and contractual decanting authority and made factual findings approving the specific proposed decanting.
- On appeal the Wyoming Supreme Court held EFM has general authority to decant under Wyoming law and the Trust Agreement, but reversed the district court’s factual findings approving the specific decanting because those were disputed material facts inappropriate to decide on a judgment-on-the-pleadings motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (EFM) | Defendant's Argument (Edward) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trustee has general authority to decant under Wyoming law and the Trust Agreement | Yes — Trust grants broad discretionary distribution/division powers and Wyo. Stat. § 4-10-816 authorizes distributions in further trust | Does not contest general statutory authority; disputes appropriateness of proposed decanting | Held: EFM has general authority to decant under Wyoming law and the Trust Agreement (affirmed) |
| Whether the district court properly granted judgment on the pleadings while resolving disputed material facts about the proposed decanting | Motion limited to legal question of authority; factual disputes are immaterial | The court improperly resolved disputed material facts (settlor intent, Trust purpose, underfunding, fiduciary breach) without discovery/trial | Held: District court erred by resolving disputed material facts on Rule 12(c) motion (reversed in part) |
| Whether the Trust requires the Ranch be held in a single combined trust (affecting § 4-10-816(a)(xxx) application) | EFM relied primarily on § 4-10-816(a)(xxviii) and the Trust’s division/distribution clauses | Edward asserted § 4-10-816(a)(xxx) may prohibit separation if instrument requires single trust and that Trust provisions support a single combined fund for the primary term | Held: Court need not resolve these interpretive/factual disputes here; interpretation may be material and cannot be decided on pleadings alone |
| Whether further proceedings/remand are needed to litigate disputed factual issues | EFM argued no further proceedings required because general authority question resolved | Edward sought remand for discovery and trial on the contested factual matters | Held: Court limited its affirmation to the narrow legal question and declined to remand; no further proceedings required now on that issue, but factual disputes remain for potential future litigation |
Key Cases Cited
- Newport Int'l Univ. v. Wyo. Dep't of Educ., 186 P.3d 382 (Wyo. 2008) (standard for judgment on the pleadings)
- Ecosystem Res., L.C. v. Broadbent Land & Res., L.L.C., 158 P.3d 685 (Wyo. 2007) (motions on pleadings require viewing facts in light most favorable to nonmoving party)
- Shriners Hosps. for Children v. First N. Bank of Wyo., 373 P.3d 392 (Wyo. 2016) (trust interpretation focuses on settlor intent; material purposes can preclude termination or disposition changes)