Retz v. Siebrandt

• Decision Date: 11 April 2008
• Docket Number: No. S-07-0023.,S-07-0023.
• Citation: 2008 WY 44,181 P.3d 84
• Parties: Ron RETZ, an individual; Ernest Williams, individually and as trustee for nieces and nephews of the decedent, William C. Rogers; Anne Burwell Williams, individually and as cotrustee for the nieces and nephews of the decedent, William C. Rogers; Fred Crouter, individually and as trustee of the Ada Crouter Trust; and Beverly Crouter, an individual, Appellants (Plaintiffs), v. William SIEBRANDT, an individual; Salvador Zarate, an individual; Charles E. Graves, in his capacity as Successor Trustee of the Living Trust of William C. Rogers, deceased, Appellees (Defendants), and The University of Wyoming Foundation, a Wyoming nonprofit corporation, Appellee (Nominal Defendant).
• Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

181 P.3d 84

2008 WY 44

Ron RETZ, an individual; Ernest Williams, individually and as trustee for nieces and nephews of the decedent, William C. Rogers; Anne Burwell Williams, individually and as cotrustee for the nieces and nephews of the decedent, William C. Rogers; Fred Crouter, individually and as trustee of the Ada Crouter Trust; and Beverly Crouter, an individual, Appellants (Plaintiffs), v. William SIEBRANDT, an individual; Salvador Zarate, an individual; Charles E. Graves, in his capacity as Successor Trustee of the Living Trust of William C. Rogers, deceased, Appellees (Defendants), and The University of Wyoming Foundation, a Wyoming nonprofit corporation, Appellee (Nominal Defendant).

No. S-07-0023.

Supreme Court of Wyoming.

April 11, 2008.

Representing Appellants: CM. Aron, Aron and Henning, LLP, Laramie, Wyoming; and Mattaniah Eytan, Law Offices of Mattaniah Eytan, Corte Madera, California. Argument by Mr. Eytan.

Representing Appellees: Jason M. Tangeman, Jeff Anthony, and Philip A. Nicholas of Anthony, Nicholas & Tangeman, LLC, Laramie, Wyoming, for Appellees William Siebrandt and Salvador Zarate. Paul J. Hickey, Roger C. Fransen, and Brandi L. Monger^* of Hickey & Evans, LLP, Cheyenne, Wyoming, for Appellee Charles E. Graves (Trustee). Gregory C. Dyekman and Timothy L. Woznick of Dray, Thomson & Dyekman, P.C., Cheyenne, Wyoming, for Appellee The University of Wyoming Foundation. Argument by Messrs. Hickey, Tangeman, and Woznick.

Before VOIGT, C.J., and GOLDEN, HILL, and BURKE, JJ, and RYCKMAN, D.J.

VOIGT, Chief Justice.

[¶ 1] Appellants, Ron Retz, Ernest Williams, Anne Burwell Williams, Fred Crouter, and Beverly Crouter, request relief from the district court's grant of two separate motions for summary judgment, the last of which effectively disposed of Appellants' claims against Appellees William Siebrandt, Salvador Zarate, Charles E. Graves (Trustee), and The University of Wyoming Foundation. Appellants also contest the district court's denial of a motion to amend the complaint. We affirm.

ISSUES

[¶ 2] 1. Did the district court abuse its discretion in denying Appellants' request for leave to amend the complaint?

2. Did the district court properly grant summary judgment on the claim for breach of contract to make a will and on the claim challenging the validity of the 2002 trust?

Appellants' Notice of Appeal also lists several other issues. Appellants chose not to argue those issues in their briefs and we consider them waived.

FACTS

[¶ 3] Colonel William C. Rogers (the Colonel) died in Carmel, California, on April 30, 2003. The Colonel was 96 years old, not married at the time of his death, and had no known children. His only marriage was dissolved in 1966 after protracted litigation. During the divorce, the Colonel transferred most of his assets to various members of his immediate family with the apparent goal of keeping his wife from reaching those assets in the divorce. When the divorce was completed, his family returned the Colonel's assets to him. The Colonel ceased contact with his family at some point thereafter. At the time of his death, the Colonel had not maintained contact with his family for more than 30 years. Appellants Anne Burwell Williams and Ernest Williams are the children of two of the Colonel's sisters.

[¶ 4] The Colonel spent some years in Wyoming and Nebraska before moving to California in 1997. By then, the Colonel was unable to walk and required assistance with the daily tasks of life. He lived in several assisted living facilities before purchasing his own home, where he lived during his last years with the help of a caretaker. The Colonel's closest companion during this time was Appellee William Siebrandt. Mr. Siebrandt, who had known the Colonel for many years, helped the Colonel manage his significant investments, arranged for his care, and visited him daily. The Colonel's relationship with Siebrandt was a problematic one, and both parties cut off contact with each other several times over the years before the Colonel moved to California. Over the course of their relationship, the Colonel gave Siebrandt a series of generous monetary gifts.

[¶ 5] The Colonel was meticulous in his estate planning, He created a series of instruments, including at least ten separate amended living trusts, over the course of the years. The trusts have minor variations, but all contain a number of individual and charitable bequests and leave the residual estate to the University of Wyoming. The Colonel also donated generously to the University during his life.

[¶ 6] During his life, the Colonel was trustee of his own revocable trust. Upon his death, that responsibility passed to his attorney, Appellee Charles Graves. Mr. Graves sent notice of the Amended Living Trust of William C. Rogers, dated February 16, 2002, to all beneficiaries in June of 2003. Appellants, all of whom are either beneficiaries of the trust or claim some right to assets contained therein, filed the Complaint in this action on April 29, 2005. Appellants alleged, inter alia, that the 2002 trust was executed under undue influence, that the trust was forged, that the trust was created in violation of a contract to make a will, and that the Trustee had violated his duty to the trust by refusing to bring suit in California to recover monies Appellants allege were misappropriated before the Colonel's death. Appellees moved for summary judgment, which the district court partially granted on September 12, 2006. After the Motion for Summary Judgment was filed but before the order partially granting summary judgment was entered, Appellants moved to amend their Complaint. The district court denied that motion in part and granted summary judgment for Appellees on the remaining issues on November 28, 2006. This appeal followed.

DISCUSSION

A. The Motion to Amend

[¶ 7] The law in Wyoming is well settled that the decision to allow amendment to pleadings is vested within the sound discretion of the district court. That decision will be reversed only for an abuse of discretion shown by clear evidence.

Leave to amend pleadings "shall be freely given when justice so requires." We have identified the proper test as to what the trial court should consider when an amendment is-proffered to be the following:

If the underlying facts or circumstances relied upon by a plaintiff may be a proper subject of relief, he ought to be afforded an opportunity to test his claim on the merits. In the absence of any apparent or declared reason — such as undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, futility of amendment, etc. — the leave sought should, as the rules require, be `freely given.'

Armstrong v. Hrabal, 2004 WY 39, ¶ 11, 87 P.3d 1226, 1230-31 (Wyo.2004) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).

[¶ 8] We cannot find that the district court abused its discretion in denying Appellants leave to amend the Complaint. Several of the above-stated factors, any one of which gives a district court reason to deny amendment of a complaint, were present in this case. Appellants filed their Motion to Amend Complaint on August 22, 2006, more than a year after filing the Complaint, and only days from the court-ordered discovery cut off. At that time, Appellees' Motion for Summary Judgment was still pending. Several of the changes to the Complaint modified claims that were the subject of that summary judgment motion. Appellants also attempted to add new claims that would not be in danger from the pending summary judgment motion. The requested changes would have required significant additional discovery, including retaking depositions, and would have entitled Appellees to further dispositive motions.¹ Many of the proposed changes would also have been futile because the district court had already disposed of the underlying issues on summary judgment by the time the motion was decided. The claims that had not yet been decided suffered from the same failures of proof that ultimately led the district court to dismiss summarily the remainder of Appellants' claims as discussed below, and amendment to add them would have been futile. See infra ¶¶ 9-13.

[¶ 9] Appellants Anne Burwell Williams and Ernest Williams, the Colonel's estranged niece and nephew, argue that the district court should have allowed them to amend the Complaint to add their claim to have Appellee Charles Graves removed as Trustee. The district court found that this claim was a reiteration of Appellants' earlier request for injunctive relief, requesting that the court require the Trustee to sue Appellees Siebrandt and Zarate in California to recover trust monies Appellants feel were misappropriated. The district court found that Mr. Graves had not abused his discretion as Trustee when it dismissed the former claim, and did not therefore abuse its discretion when it refused to allow Appellants to add another claim based on the same set of facts and allegations.

[¶ 10] Appellants also take issue with the district court's refusal to allow them to amend their Complaint to add claims for the torts of elder abuse and undue influence. Appellants have not made any cogent argument supported by law as to why a Wyoming court should have jurisdiction, or accept venue, over torts allegedly committed in California, by California residents, against another California resident. Nor do Appellants give any reason they would have standing to bring such a claim on behalf of the Colonel personally. The only justification Appellants give in their brief is that the district court stated in its September 12, 2006 decision letter that "[appellants'] concerns can be resolved fully and fairly in the current litigation and without resorting to additional litigation in California." That statement was made in reference to the...