In the Matter of the Estate of Walker P. Inman, Jr. Revocable Trust (made irrevocable by death of Trustor) dated January 25, 2005: Daralee Inman, as Personal Representative for the Estate of Walker P. Inman, Jr., and Daralee Inman and Brett Armstrong, as Trustees of the Walker P. Inman, Jr. Revocable Trust dated January 25, 2005 v. Walker Patterson Inman, III and Georgia Noel Inman, by and through their Conservator, Wyoming Trust Company, 2016 WY 101

Background

Walker P. Inman, Jr. created an inter vivos trust (Trust) and a Will; both provided for distributions to his wife Daralee and two minor children; the Will directed estate property to be transferred to the Trust.
Walker died in February 2010; Daralee was appointed Personal Representative of the probate estate and was a co-trustee of the Trust.
Wyoming Trust Company (WTC) later petitioned and was appointed conservator for the minor children, then filed a separate complaint against the trustees asserting breach of fiduciary duty, failure to account, removal of trustees, indemnity, and declaratory relief.
The district court consolidated the probate and WTC’s conservatorship/complaint and asked the parties to brief two threshold issues: the meaning of Trust Article IV, ¶ 4.1 and the effect of In re Estate of George.
The court issued a declaratory-style order interpreting Article IV, ¶ 4.1 and holding the Wyoming Probate Code governs transfer of estate property to the Trust, but left all substantive claims and the probate accounting/distribution unresolved.
Daralee appealed the order; the Supreme Court questioned its jurisdiction because the district court did not enter a final appealable order.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to hear Daralee’s appeal	Daralee contends the district court’s order is a declaratory judgment under the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act and therefore final and appealable	WTC and respondents argue the order is not final because it did not resolve the claims or close the probate; final-judgment rule controls appealability	No jurisdiction; order is nonfinal and not appealable because it did not determine merits or resolve all outstanding issues
Whether a declaratory-style order is exempt from final-order requirements	Daralee argues § 1‑37‑102 makes declaratory judgments equivalent to final judgments and thus appealable	Respondents say declaratory relief must actually terminate the controversy to be appealable and W.R.A.P. 1.05 applies	Court rejects exemption: declaratory orders are appealable only if they end the controversy or a severable part of it
Whether the district court’s interpretation of Trust Article IV, ¶ 4.1 created an appealable severable decision	Daralee implies the interpretation is a discrete, appealable ruling affecting substantial rights	Respondents assert the interpretation was preliminary and did not resolve distribution or trustee-liability issues	Court finds the interpretation was preliminary and did not resolve the parties’ rights or claims; not severably appealable
Proper standard for reviewing jurisdictional question	Daralee did not dispute standard	Wyo. Supreme Court treats jurisdictional existence as a question of law reviewed de novo	Court applies de novo review and concludes it lacks jurisdiction

Key Cases Cited

Brown v. City of Casper, 248 P.3d 1136 (stating appellate jurisdiction is a question of law reviewed de novo)
McLean v. Hyland Enterprises, Inc., 34 P.3d 1262 (Court has no jurisdiction to entertain appeal from nonfinal order)
Waldron v. Waldron, 349 P.3d 974 (appealable order must affect a substantial right, determine merits, and resolve outstanding issues)
Estate of Dahlke ex rel. Jubie v. Dahlke, 319 P.3d 116 (describing final appealable orders in probate proceedings)
King v. Bd. of Cty. Comm’rs of Cty. of Fremont, 244 P.3d 473 (W.R.A.P. 1.05 applied to declaratory judgment actions)
Rocky Mountain Oil & Gas Ass’n v. State, 645 P.2d 1163 (declaratory judgment action inappropriate where it will not terminate the controversy)