Case Title: Estate of Noell v. Norwest Bank Wyoming, N.A.

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 1998-06-22T00:00:00Z

Document:
Estate of Noell v. Norwest Bank Wyoming, N.A.1998 WY 78960 P.2d 499Case Number: 97-292Decided: 06/22/1998Supreme Court of Wyoming
 
The 
ESTATE OF Helen C. NOELL, by and through its Personal Representative, Appellant 
(Plaintiff),

v.

NORWEST BANK WYOMING, 
N.A., formerly known as Norwest Bank Casper, N.A., Appellee 
(Defendant).

 

Appeal from the District 
Court, Natrona County, W. Thomas Sullins, J.

Richard G. 
Miller of Richard G. Miller, P.C., Casper, for Appellant 
(Plaintiff).

 

Bruce N. 
Willoughby and Joseph D. Richer of Brown, Drew, Massey & Sullivan, Casper, 
for Appellee (Defendant).

Before 
TAYLOR, C.J., and THOMAS, MACY, GOLDEN & LEHMAN, 
JJ.

MACY, 
Justice.

[¶1]      Appellant Estate 
of Helen Noell (the estate) appeals from the summary judgment which was entered 
in favor of Appellee Norwest Bank Wyoming, N.A. (the 
bank).

[¶2]      We 
affirm.

ISSUE

[¶3]      The estate 
presents a single issue for our review:

I. Did the trial 
court [err] in ruling that the bank did not breach its fiduciary duty when it 
disbursed the corpus of the trust to another financial institution, after the 
death of the trustor, contrary to the express terms of the 
trust?

FACTS

[¶4]      The material 
facts in this case are undisputed. William Noell and Helen Noell, the trustors, 
entered into a trust agreement with the bank, the trustee. William died on 
January 5, 1987, leaving Helen as his surviving spouse and the sole trustor. 
Helen faxed a letter to the bank on August 31, 1992, directing it to deliver all 
the trust assets to Delaware Charter Guarantee and Trust Company, the successor 
trustee, and releasing the bank, upon delivery of the assets, of its 
responsibilities as trustee. Helen died on September 11, 
1992.

[¶5]      The bank mailed a 
check in the amount of $107,777.42 to Delaware Charter on September 17, 1992. 
Upon discovering that the check had been cut for an incorrect amount, the bank 
placed a stop payment on the check. The bank reissued the check on September 22, 
1992, in the amount of $107,177.42. It issued a second check payable to Delaware 
Charter on October 6, 1992, in the amount of $116.72.

[¶6]      The estate sued 
the bank, alleging that the bank breached its fiduciary duty to the trustor and 
to the estate and that the bank acted negligently by transferring the trust 
funds to Delaware Charter. The bank moved for a summary judgment, and the estate 
countered with a motion for a partial summary judgment. After a hearing on the 
matter, the district court granted the bank's motion. The estate appeals from 
that order.

STANDARD OF 
REVIEW

[¶7]      A summary 
judgment is appropriate when no genuine issue as to any material fact exists and 
when the prevailing party is entitled to have a judgment as a matter of law. 
Covington v. W.R. Grace-Conn., Inc., 952 P.2d 1105, 1106 (Wyo. 1998). When a 
dispute does not exist with regard to the material facts, the question presented 
for our review is a question of law. Rist v. Taylor, 955 P.2d 436, 437 (Wyo. 
1998). We do not accord special deference to the district court's decisions on 
matters of law. Id.

DISCUSSION

[¶8]      The estate 
contends that the bank ignored the express terms of the trust agreement and 
breached its fiduciary duty when it failed to transfer the trust assets to 
Helen's estate and that its failure to transfer the trust assets defeated the 
general purpose of the trust agreement. The bank counters that the trust 
agreement was revoked on August 31, 1992, upon Helen's written direction and 
that Helen's intervening death did not affect her August 31st 
revocation.

[¶9]      The trust 
agreement at issue provided in relevant part:

ARTICLE II 
RIGHTS RESERVED BY TRUSTOR: Trustor reserves the right to direct distributions 
from the trust estate, add other property acceptable to the Trustee to the trust 
estate, amend this agreement in any respect, provided that any amendment shall 
not affect the duties and responsibilities of the Trustee without its consent, 
and revoke this trust entirely or withdraw at any time or from time to time any 
part of the trust estate upon reasonable notice to Trustee and upon 
indemnification of the Trustee to its satisfaction against liabilities incurred 
in the administration of the trust.

. . . 
.

ARTICLE IV 
DISTRIBUTIONS FROM THE TRUST:

. . . 
.

3. On the death 
of Trustor, the Trustee shall distribute the trust estate then remaining as 
follows:

To the estate of 
the surviving settlor.

Helen's August 
31, 1992, letter stated:

I, Helen C. 
Noell, hereby authorize and direct Norwest Bank Wyoming Casper, N.A., FKA 
Norwest Bank Casper, N.A., Trustee, to transfer the funds in my trust, the Helen 
C. Noell Trust, dated July 7, 1986 to Delaware Charter Guarantee and Trust 
Company, Successor Trustee, P.O. Box 8963, Wilmington, Delaware 
19899.

[¶10]   Upon delivery of the assets to 
Delaware Charter Guarantee and Trust Company, the undersigned releases and 
discharges said Norwest Bank Wyoming Casper, N.A., Trustee[,] from any further 
obligation or responsibility with respect to said Trust account, and hereby 
ratifies, approves, and confirms all acts and things done and not done by said 
Trustee in the administration of said Trust account, including without limiting 
the foregoing: all acts of said Trustee in purchasing, selling, exchanging or 
retaining assets and in investing funds of the Trust account, in paying 
compensation to itself, and all other disbursements paid as shown by the 
Trustee's accounts, hereby settles and allows said Trustee's accounts are true, 
correct, and complete.

[¶11]   "A trust agreement is governed by 
the plain meaning contained in the four corners of the document." Hronek v. 
Saint Joseph's Children's Home, 866 P.2d 1305, 1307 (Wyo. 1994). A settlor who 
has reserved the power to revoke his trust may validly revoke the trust pursuant 
to the trust's terms. 2 RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TRUSTS 2D § 330 
(1959).

[¶12]   The Kansas Supreme Court considered 
the issue of whether a letter revoking a trust agreement effectively revoked the 
trust even though the trust assets had not been transferred when the trustor 
died a few weeks later. State Bank of Parsons v. First National Bank in Wichita, 
210 Kan. 647, 504 P.2d 156, 158-59 (1972). The court held:

By signing and 
delivering the letter to the trustee, settlor completed the only step required 
by the agreement for revocation of the trust. The obvious conclusion must be, 
and we so hold, that when a trust agreement provides in plain and unambiguous 
language for revocation by written notice to the trustee of settlor's present 
intent to revoke, such notice to the trustee is, without more, sufficient to 
effect revocation. Applied here, this means settlor could by letter delivered to 
the trustee revoke the trust.

504 P.2d  at 160. 
We agree with the Kansas Supreme Court's analysis and apply it to the case at 
bar.

[¶13]   Helen's letter specifically 
directed the bank to transfer the trust funds to Delaware Charter pursuant to 
her reserved right to revoke the trust agreement. She effectively revoked the 
trust agreement on August 31, 1992, and the only actions the bank could take 
then were those actions which would accomplish the transfer of the funds within 
a reasonable time.

[¶14]   The estate's claim that Article IV, 
Section 3 of the trust agreement required the bank to distribute the trust 
assets to Helen's estate upon her death presumes that the trust agreement was 
still in effect at the time of Helen's death. This is a fundamental flaw in the 
estate's argument. The trust agreement was revoked on August 31, 1992, and 
Helen's death did not render that revocation void. Transfer of the trust assets 
was not a prerequisite to revocation of the trust agreement, and the fact that 
the bank did not accomplish the transfer before Helen died is of no 
consequence.

[¶15]   Affirmed.