Forbes v. Forbes
Wyoming Supreme Court
509 P.3d 888 (2022)

- Written by Sean Carroll, JD
Facts
The Forbes family created the Becton Ranch Trust. The trust provided that the trustees, who were also beneficiaries of the trust, could purchase at fair value any interest in the trust that was transferred to an individual who was not a descendant of William Forbes. The provision gave the trustees the discretion to appraise the shares’ value. The trust had 21 beneficiaries and four trustees. Waldo Forbes (Spike) (plaintiff) sought to transfer shares in the trust to his stepsons, who were not descendants of William. The trustees exercised their option to appraise and purchase. The trustees decided that the fair value of the shares would be determined by a sealed bid process, during which trustees would bid the price that they believed a knowledgeable third party would pay. The trustees set the minimum bid for each share at $4,000. Cam, a trustee, later acknowledged that this was a low starting point. Based on the bids, the trustees set the fair value of the shares at $5,972.22. Trustee Edith Forbes purchased one of the shares for $6,000. Spike filed a complaint, arguing that that the trustees breached their fiduciary duty of loyalty by using the sealed-bid process. The trial court found that the trustees did not breach their duty of loyalty by using the process. Spike appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Overfield, J.)
Concurrence/Dissent (Kautz, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 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.