Lyman v. Fisher (In re Fisher)
| Citation | 2023 WY 25 |
| Decision Date | 28 March 2023 |
| Docket Number | S-22-0105,S-22-0182 |
| Parties | IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF MARY MAE FISHER, deceased: v. GEORGE WAYNE FISHER, Appellee (Personal Representative). DWIGHT LYMAN and BETTY L. LYMAN, Trustees of the Dwight Lyman Living Trust dated November 11, 2016, and BETTY L. LYMAN and DWIGHT LYMAN, Trustees of the Betty L. Lyman Living Trust dated November 11, 2016, Appellants (Petitioners), And DWIGHT LYMAN and BETTY L. LYMAN, Trustees of the Dwight Lyman Living Trust dated November 11, 2016, and BETTY L. LYMAN and DWIGHT LYMAN, Trustees of the Betty L. Lyman Living Trust dated November 11, 2016, Appellants (Petitioners), v. GEORGE WAYNE FISHER, individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Mary Mae Fisher; Appellee (Respondent). |
| Court | Wyoming Supreme Court |
Appeal from the District Court of Johnson County The Honorable William J. Edelman, Judge
Representing Appellants: Mitchell H. Edwards, Nicholas & Tangeman, LLC, Laramie, Wyoming; Marshall E. Keller, Keller Law Firm, P.C., Thermopolis, Wyoming. Argument by Mr Edwards.
Representing Appellee: Anthony T. Wendtland, Wendtland, & Wendtland, LLP, Sheridan, Wyoming.
Before FOX, C.J., and KAUTZ, BOOMGAARDEN, GRAY, and FENN, JJ.
[¶1] Dwight Lyman and Betty L. Lyman, as Trustees of the Dwight Lyman Living Trust and the Betty L. Lyman Living Trust (Lyman Trust), owned a parcel of real property as tenants in common with George Fisher (George) and a second parcel in common with George's deceased parents. Acting on his own behalf and as personal representative of his parents' estates, George sold their interests in the two parcels to the Robert B. Childs Living Trust (Childs Trust). Lyman Trust petitioned the district court to partition the parcels and moved the probate court to set aside the sale. The probate court denied Lyman Trust's motion, and the district court dismissed Lyman Trust's partition petition without prejudice because it had failed to join Childs Trust as a required party. We dismiss Lyman Trust's appeal of the probate court's actions for lack of standing and reverse and remand the district court's dismissal of the partition action.
[¶2] The dispositive issues are:
[¶3] Winfield and Mary Fisher, and their son, George, lived in New Jersey but owned, as tenants in common with Lyman Trust, two parcels of real property located in the Big Horn Mountains of Johnson County, Wyoming (Parcels 1 and 2). Winfield and Mary, as husband and wife (tenants by the entireties), and Lyman Trust owned undivided 50 percent interests in Parcel 1; George and Lyman Trust owned undivided 50 percent interests in Parcel 2. Winfield died in 1984, but Mary did not file an affidavit of survivorship to transfer the record title of Parcel 1 to her sole ownership. Mary died in 1999.
[¶4] George filed separate petitions for ancillary probate of Mary's and Winfield's wills in the probate court and was appointed personal representative of both estates, which we refer to collectively as the "Estate."[1] The only asset of the Estate was the tenancy in common interest in Parcel 1, and George was the only distributee. The Estate published notice of the probate and directed creditors to file claims. No creditor claims were filed.
[¶5] Because they owned properties adjoining Parcels 1 and 2, Lyman Trust and Childs Trust separately offered to purchase George's and the Estate's (hereinafter collectively referred to as "the Fishers") interests in the parcels. George decided to sell the Fishers' co-tenancy interests to Childs Trust and informed Lyman Trust of his decision. Lyman Trust promptly filed a petition to partition both co-owned parcels, naming the Fishers as respondents.
[¶6] George filed a confidential petition in the probate court seeking its permission to sell the Estate's interest in Parcel 1 to Childs Trust. The probate court approved the sale, and George executed deeds to Childs Trust for his and the Estate's interests. He then filed, in the probate action, a final report, accounting, and petition to distribute the proceeds of the sale of the Estate's interest in Parcel 1 (hereinafter referred to as "final report"). Lyman Trust objected to the final report and filed a motion to set aside the probate court's order approving the sale, claiming the Estate's co-tenancy interest could not be transferred while the partition action was pending and George violated various provisions of the probate code in administering the Estate.
[¶7] The Fishers filed a motion to dismiss Lyman Trust's partition action under Wyoming Rule of Civil Procedure (W.R.C.P.) 12(b)(7) because it failed to join Childs Trust as a required party and provided copies of the executed deeds to the district court in support of the motion. The court held a combined hearing on the pending motions in the probate and partition cases. The probate court denied Lyman Trust's objection to George's final report and its motion to set aside the order approving the sale of the Estate's interest in Parcel 1. Lyman Trust appealed the probate court's orders, and we docketed the appeal as Case No. S-22-0105. The district court found Childs Trust was a required party in the partition action and dismissed the action without prejudice. Lyman Trust appealed the district court's dismissal order, and we docketed that appeal as Case No. S-22-0182.
Dismissal of the Probate Court Appeal - Case No. S-22-0105 [¶8] The Estate moved for dismissal of Lyman Trust's appeal in the probate case, claiming it failed to file a timely notice of appeal from an appealable order. We dismiss, but on the basis that Lyman Trust never had standing in the probate action. The existence of standing may be raised at any time and by the court sua sponte. Bird v. Lampert, 2019 WY 56, ¶ 7, 441 P.3d 850, 854 (Wyo. 2019); In re Adoption of L-MHB, 2018 WY 140, ¶ 24, 431 P.3d 560, 568 (Wyo. 2018). It is "a legal issue reviewed de novo." HB Fam. Ltd. P'ship v. Teton Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs, 2020 WY 98, ¶ 16, 468 P.3d 1081, 1087 (Wyo. 2020) () (other citations omitted).
[¶9] As stated above, Lyman Trust objected to George's final report in the probate and moved to set aside the order approving the Estate's sale of the co-tenancy interest. It claimed George violated his personal representative duties by, among other things, keeping the Estate's sale of its co-tenancy interest confidential and agreeing to sell to Childs Trust for an amount less than what Lyman Trust had offered. Lyman Trust also asserted the order allowing the sale was improper because the Estate could not transfer its co-tenancy interest while the property was subject to partition. According to Lyman Trust, the partition action created a lis pendens under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1-6-106 (LexisNexis 2021), which prohibited a third party from acquiring any interest in the real property while the action was pending.
[¶10] The determination of who has standing in a probate matter is governed by statute. In re Est. of Stanford, 2019 WY 94, ¶¶ 13-15, 448 P.3d 861, 865-66 (Wyo. 2019). Lyman Trust did not claim to be a distributee of the estate, nor did it file a claim as a creditor of the estate. See Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 2-1-301 (a)(xiii) (LexisNexis 2021) (); Wyo. Stat. Ann. §§ 2-7-701 to 2-7-119 (LexisNexis 2021) (probate claims process). Lyman Trust does not identify any other probate statute which would give it an interest in the Estate's administration.
[¶11] Lyman Trust apparently believed it was allowed to object in the probate action to the sale of the Estate's co-tenancy interest because, by filing the separate partition action, it followed the process we sanctioned in In re Est. of Rowe, 2021 WY 87, ¶¶ 13-18, 492 P.3d 888, 893-94 (Wyo. 2021). After the husband in Rowe killed his wife and himself, the wife's estate took possession of some jointly-owned vehicles and petitioned the probate court for permission to sell them. Id., ¶ 3, 492 P.3d at 890. The wife's estate served the husband's estate with notice of the petition to sell the vehicles, and the husband's estate objected, claiming it owned the vehicles. Id., ¶ 4, 492 P.3d at 890-91. After allowing the husband's estate to intervene, the probate court ruled the parties owned the vehicles as tenants in common, authorized the sale, and ordered the wife's estate to hold one-half of the sale proceeds for the benefit of the husband's estate. Id., ¶ 5, 492 P.3d at 891. The husband's estate appealed. Id. Although we held the probate court's order granting the wife's estate permission to sell the vehicles was not appealable, we took the opportunity to point out that, prior to petitioning the probate court for permission to sell the vehicles, a separate action should have been brought to establish ownership. Id., ¶¶ 7-9, 14-18, 492 P.3d at 891-94.
[¶12] Both the husband's and the wife's estates claimed ownership of the property at...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Court Summaries
...did not reflect she committed. In the Matter of the Estate of Mary Mae Fisher, deceased, et al. v. George W. Fisher S-22-0105; S-22-0182 2023 WY 25 March 28, 2023 Winfield and Mary Fisher, and their son, George, as tenants in common with Dwight Lyman and Betty L. Lyman, as Trustees of the L......