The Courtenay C. and Lucy Patten Davis Foundation and Amy Davis, Individually v. Colorado State University Research Foundation, University of Wyoming Foundation and C.C. Davis and Co., LLC, a Wyoming Limited Liability Company, and Gregory A. Phillips, Wyoming Attorney General, In His Official Capacity, 2014 WY 32

Davis Interests donated the Y Cross Ranch and LLC interests to the University Foundations via a 1997 MOA, with 50/50 LLC ownership and a conservation easement to The Nature Conservancy.
The MOA required a five-member Ranch Management Committee including a Davis Foundation appointee and provided Amy Davis would serve as a non-paid consultant for seven years.
The MOA also outlined a two-phase business plan (Phases 1 and 2) aimed at stabilizing the ranch and funding endowments for scholarships and research.
In 2011 the University Foundations decided to sell the Ranch; in 2012 the Davises sought to enjoin the sale and asserted the MOA created restraints or implied trusts.
The district court dismissed for lack of standing, holding the donation was a gift, there was no implied trust, and only the attorney general could enforce the gift’s terms; the Davises appealed.
The supreme court affirmed, concluding the donation was a gift (not a charitable trust), no implied trust was created, and standing to enforce a charitable gift rests with the attorney general.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the district court err on standing for the Davis Interests?	Davis Interests argue implied trust/standing as settlors and as MC members.	University Foundations argue standing lies solely with attorney general.	Yes, district court correct; only AG has standing.
Did MOA create an implied trust or bind the Foundation as a trust entity?	MOA creates implied trust to enforce donor intent.	MOA is a gift with clear directives, no implied trust.	No implied trust; MOA shows gift to Foundations.

Town of Cody v. Buffalo Bill Memorial Ass’n, 64 Wyo. 468 (Wyoming 1948) (implied trust when charitable use is implied by circumstance; grants may create resulting trust to enforce charitable purpose)
Meima v. Broemmel, 117 P.3d 429 (Wyoming 2005) (trusts implied by conduct; limitations on resulting trusts; caution against implying a trust when other transactions fit)
Dallas Dome Wyo. Oil Fields Co. v. Brooder, 97 P.2d 311 (Wyoming 1939) (trust concepts and when a resulting trust is not imposed; transaction's nature matters)
Carl J. Herzog Found., Inc. v. Univ. of Bridgeport, 699 A.2d 995 (Conn. 1997) (donor standing to enforce charitable gifts; common-law limitations)