Lindsey v. Harriet
2011 WY 80
| Wyo. | 2011Background
- Helen Peitersen transferred 67 Burnett Livestock shares to Janet Lohry in 1987; the 1989 Agreement envisioned dividend-sharing with other family members.
- Janet Lohry’s 1996 will bequeathed the shares to Lindsey subject to the 1989 Agreement; two 1997 handwritten documents altered beneficiary terms.
- In 2001, Lohry directed the transfer of her 67 shares to Lindsey; Lindsey became stockholder after Lohry’s death in 2001.
- Appellees filed suit in 2008 seeking a constructive trust on 13.4 shares for their benefit, alleging reliance on the 1989 Agreement.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Appellees, establishing a Peitersen Heirs Trust governing the shares and distributions.
- Lindsey appeals, arguing there was no valid promise or reliance to support a constructive trust and the 1989 Agreement did not transfer title.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was creditor’s claim deficiency a bar to the trust claim? | Lindsey | Harriet/Peitersen | Not addressed in issued decision; the appeal focuses on construction of the agreement and gifts. |
| Did 1987 gift and 2001 transfer constitute completed gifts to Lindsey/others? | Lindsey | ||
| The transfers were completed gifts to her or to the trust via Lohry’s will. | Harriet | ||
| The transfers were conditioned by the 1989 Agreement and documents | The district court erred in treating the 1989 Agreement as creating third-party rights; no completed gift analysis resolved. | ||
| Did the 1989 Agreement create a valid promise justifying a constructive trust? | Appellees | ||
| The 1989 Agreement bound Lohry to distribute dividends to Appellees, creating trust rights. | Lindsey | ||
| No valid promise by Lohry to distribute 13.4 shares to Appellees; no reliance. | The Court held the district court erred; the 1989 Agreement did not establish a valid promise. | ||
| If the promise existed, were terms limited to a life estate or income? | Appellees | ||
| Promised interests persisted beyond Lohry’s life. | Lindsey | ||
| The arrangement was a life-income concept with varying terms over time. | Court declined to construe as enforceable life-estate terms; issues not fully decided on remand. | ||
| Should the case be remanded for further discrete issues? | Appellees | ||
| The district court’s ruling should stand as a constructive trust. | Lindsey | ||
| There are unresolved questions; remand is appropriate. | Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with opinion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Baker v. Ayres & Baker Pole & Post, Inc., 2007 WY 185 (Wy. 2007) (constructive trust elements and equitable remedies)
- Lieberman v. Wyoming.com, LLC, 11 P.3d 353 (Wyo. 2000) (summary-judgment standard and review)
- Morrell v. 40 North Corp., 964 P.2d 423 (Wyo. 1998) (summary judgment de novo standard and appealability)
- Roberts v. Klinkosh, 986 P.2d 153 (Wyo. 1999) (material facts and burden-shifting on summary judgment)