Briggs v. Wyoming National Bank of Casper
Wyoming Supreme Court
836 P.2d 263 (1992)
- Written by Serena Lipski, JD
Facts
William G. Briggs (plaintiff) was married to Eva G. Topping Briggs, and they maintained separate finances. Eva hired an attorney who had previously represented William in a bad-investment issue to draft a trust agreement. Because of the bad investment, Eva considered William to be a poor money manager, and she wanted to reduce William’s inheritance. Accordingly, the trust agreement provided William would receive a one-seventeenth share on Eva’s death. Eva was the settlor and a trustee along with Wyoming National Bank of Casper (WNBC) (defendant), had the right to receive the income and withdraw principal, and could amend and revoke the trust. William signed the trust document, which stated William waived all rights he might have to contest either the trust or the transfer of his wife’s property to the trust. The attorney later testified William was given all the pages of the trust document and was encouraged but refused to seek independent legal counsel. William testified he only had three pages, did not understand it, and was not told to hire his own attorney. After Eva’s death, William filed suit against WNBC and other beneficiaries, seeking a declaratory judgment that the trust agreement was invalid, to have the trust assets placed in Eva’s probate estate, and to declare the rights of the beneficiaries. The trial court granted summary judgment against William, holding the trust agreement was valid and enforceable except for the no-contest clause. William appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Macy, J.)
Concurrence (Thomas, J.)
Dissent (Urbigkit, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 816,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.