Case Title: Lindsey v. Harriet, et al

Citation: 

Docket Number: S-10-0046

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 2011-05-13T00:00:00Z

Document:
CHRISTINE A. LINDSEY V. CAROL PEITERSEN HARRIET and DONALD PEITERSEN2011 WY 80Case Number: No. S-10-0046Decided: 05/13/2011NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in Pacific Reporter Third. Readers are requested to notify the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Supreme Court Building, Cheyenne, Wyoming 82002, of any typographical or other formal errors so correction may be made before final publication in the permanent volume.
APRIL 
TERM, A.D. 2011

 
 

CHRISTINE 
A. LINDSEY,Appellant (Defendant),v.CAROL PEITERSEN HARRIET 
and DONALD PEITERSEN,Appellees (Plaintiffs).

 
 
 
 
Appeal 
from the District Court of Natrona County

 
 

Representing 
Appellant:

Ann 
M. Rochelle of Rochelle Law Offices, P.C., Casper, Wyoming 

 
 

Representing 
Appellees:

Timothy 
J. Kirven of Kirven and Kirven, P.C., Buffalo, Wyoming

 
 
 
 
Before 
KITE, C.J., and GOLDEN, HILL, VOIGT,* and BURKE, 
JJ.

 
 
 
 
* 
Chief Justice at time of oral argument

 
 

GOLDEN, 
Justice.

 
 
[¶1]      Appellant 
Christine A. Lindsey (Lindsey), owner of sixty-seven shares of corporate stock 
of Burnett Livestock Company (Company), appeals the district court's summary 
judgment that imposed a constructive trust upon those sixty-seven shares for the 
benefit of several of her relatives, including her aunt and uncle, Carol 
Peitersen Harriet and Donald Peitersen (Appellees), in accordance with the 
provisions of a document entitled Agreement for Disposition of Rental and/or 
Royalty Income (1989 Agreement) signed on February 20, 1989, by Janet Sue Lohry, 
who was Lindsey's mother, and Helen Peitersen, who was Lindsey's 
grandmother.  We reverse the summary 
judgment and remand for further proceedings consistent with this 
opinion.

 
 

ISSUES

 
 
[¶2]      Lindsey sets 
forth her statement of the issues in this fashion:

 
 
1.         
No Creditor's Claim was Filed by Appellees in the Estate of Janet 
Lohry Thus Barring this Constructive Trust Claim:  Was the claim of Appellees for a 
constructive trust barred because they failed to file a creditor's claim in the 
Estate of Janet Lohry?

 
 
2.         
Gifts Were Made in 1987 and 2001:  Was the transfer of the 67 shares of 
stock by Helen Peitersen to Janet Lohry in August 1987 a completed 
gift?

            
Was the transfer of the 67 shares of stock by Janet Lohry in March 2001 
to Christine Lindsey a completed gift?

 
 
3.         
There Was No Constructive Trust:  Did the Agreement for Disposition of Rental and/or 
Royalty Income dated February 20, 1989, constitute a promise made in 1987 by 
which Janet Lohry induced Helen Peitersen to transfer the 67 shares of BLC stock 
to Janet Lohry in 1987 and by which transfer Janet Lohry was unjustly enriched 
so as to support a constructive trust?

 
 
4.         
At Best, the Agreement Was a Life Estate for Income Based on Janet's 
Life:  Assuming arguendo that the Agreement was a promise to induce Helen 
Peitersen to transfer the 67 shares of BLC stock to Janet, what were the terms 
of that promise?  The Agreement by its own 
terms:

 
 

·         
Was 
limited to income.

·         
Was 
limited to the lifetime of Janet Lohry.

·         
Imposed 
an obligation on Janet Lohry, but no one else.

·         
Acknowledged 
that Janet Lohry was the owner of the 67 shares.

·         
Acknowledged 
that Janet had the unfettered rights as to the disposition of those stock 
shares.

 
 
Appellees 
state this issue:

 
 
Did 
the District Court correctly grant Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment 
enforcing the Agreement for Disposition of Rental and/or Royalty Income and 
imposing a constructive trust on shares of stock held by 
Appellant?

 
 
Lindsey 
also filed a reply brief regarding the creditor's notice issue; a revocable 
assignment issue; and the issue whether Janet Sue Lohry's transfer of the shares 
of stock to Lindsey was effective before Janet Sue Lohry's 
death.

 
 

FACTS

 
 
[¶3]      Helen Peitersen's 
children were Janet Sue Lohry, Keri J. Haswell, Bette G. Peitersen, and 
Appellees. Helen Peitersen acquired fifty shares of Company stock on November 
20, 1959, and another seventeen shares on September 7, 1979.  On August 14, 1987, Helen Peitersen 
assigned her sixty-seven shares of Company stock to her daughter, Janet Sue 
Lohry, and Stock Certificate No. 83 evidencing those shares was issued to that 
daughter.  Sixteen days later, on 
August 30, 1987, Helen Peitersen wrote the following letter to that 
daughter:

 
 
Dear 
Janet:

It 
was great having you all here this weekend. And thank you for the phone call 
yesterday.  I feel much better after 
talking with you.  

Thought 
I had collected all of the Burnett Livestock papers, but found this in my desk 
last night.  I believe the best way 
to handle this stock would be if any dividends go over a [sic]  $1000 they should be divided equally 
among you five children.  Anything 
below that should be kept for you for the handling of the company.  That will be provided for in our 
will.  How do you feel about this, 
would it pose a tax problem (for you) if we were to get a substantial amt. on a 
lease?  We must be sure we handled 
this the easiest possible way for you.  
Give it some thought as we need to update our will this winter. . . . 
Love, Mom

 
 
[¶4]      Almost eighteen 
months later, on February 20, 1989, Helen Peitersen and her daughter, Janet Sue 
Lohry, signed the 1989 Agreement:

 
 
AGREEMENT 
FOR DISPOSITION OF

RENTAL 
AND/OR ROYALTY INCOME

 
 
            
WHEREAS, JANET SUE LOHRY is the owner of Sixty-Seven (67) shares of 
BURNETT LIVESTOCK COMPANY, a Wyoming Corporation, of which she is President; 
and

 
 
            
WHEREAS, those shares were transferred to her by her mother, HELEN A. 
PEITERSEN, as a result of the intent expressed in her father's will; 
and

 
 
            
WHEREAS, both, JANET SUE LOHRY and HELEN A. PEITERSEN are desirous to 
provide that the income from the BURNETT LIVESTOCK COMPANY, which may be enjoyed 
as a result of the ownership of these shares be divided to provide some benefit 
to the other family members;

 
 
            
NOW THEREFORE IT IS AGREED, that when such time arises as the income of 
the BURNETT LIVESTOCK COMPANY is such that there is an excess of corporate 
income over expenditures sufficient to issue a dividend with a reasonable 
reserve for capital expenditures, and to the extent that JANET SUE LOHRY is able 
to require the corporation to make a distribution to the shareholders of all 
funds over and above those necessary for corporate expenditures, said dividend 
shall when received by JANET SUE LOHRY be distributed as 
follows:

 
 
1.  JANET SUE LOHRY and HELEN A. 
PEITERSEN      
50%

2.  DONALD B. PEITERSEN                                              
12.5%

3.  CAROL A. HARRIET                                                      
12.5%

4.  KARI J. HASWELL                                                          
12.5%

5.  BETTY G. PEITERSEN                                                  
12.5%

 
 
            
THIS AGREEMENT is only enforceable to the extent that each of the 
beneficiaries of this distribution of the corporate income, shall agree to be 
fully responsible for their share of the tax consequences of such 
distribution.

 
 
            
IT IS FURTHER UNDERSTOOD, that JANET SUE LOHRY may control the 
disposition of the shares, and the ownership of the shares is to remain in her 
name and under her complete control, except as set out above with regard to the 
disposition of dividend income.

            

[¶5]      More than seven 
years later, on September 30, 1996, Janet Sue Lohry executed her will which 
provided in pertinent part that her sixty-seven shares of Company stock were 
bequeathed to her daughter Lindsey, subject to the terms of the 1989 
Agreement.  Ten months later, on 
August 1, 1997, Janet Sue Lohry signed two handwritten documents, but there is 
no indication which of the documents was written first.  One document reads as 
follows:

 
 
Burnett 
Livestock Co.

67 
Shares

 
 
            
Let it be known that my wishes & intent in bequeathing 67 shares of 
Burnett Livestock Co. to my daughter, Christine A. Lohry, is for the purpose of 
providing her, and her alone, full & sole use of the 
shares.

 
 
            
She will, in accordance with my wishes, distribute any dividends in an 
equitable manner between herself, Gary Peitersen, Don Peitersen and Carol 
Peitersen.  Upon the death of any of 
these parties, she will return their portion to the common pool and redistribute 
equatably [sic].

 
 
            
Under no circumstances is she to distribute any dividends to her 
grandmother, Helen Peitersen, if living, Kari Haswell or Bette Peitersen.  Distribution to them terminates upon my 
death.

 
 
                                                            
Janet S. Lohry

                                                            
August 1, 1997

 
 
This 
statement is made in hope of protecting her inherited rights.  

 
 
[¶6]      We can make 
several observations about this document.  
The person referred to as Christine A. Lohry is the appellant Lindsey, 
and the person referred to as Gary Peitersen is Lindsey's brother.  Comparing the dividends distribution 
stated in this 1997 document with the dividends distribution stated in the 1989 
Agreement, which is referred to in Janet Sue Lohry's 1996 will, we see that 
there are now different beneficiaries:

 
 
1.         
Gary Peitersen was not listed in the 1989 Agreement, but now is listed in 
this 1997 document;

 
 
2.         
Kari Haswell was listed in the 1989 Agreement, but now is not listed in 
the 1997 document;

 
 
3.         
Bette Peitersen was listed in the 1989 Agreement, but now is not listed 
in the 1997 document;

 
 
4.         
Helen Peitersen was listed in the 1989 Agreement, but now is not listed 
in the 1997 document.

 
 
Comparing 
the amounts of dividends to be distributed under the 1989 Agreement with those 
under the 1997 document, we see that the percentages set forth in the former no 
longer exist in the latter.  That 
is, the 1997 document states simply that Lindsey will distribute "any dividends 
in an equitable manner between herself, Gary Peitersen, Don Peitersen and Carol 
Peitersen."

 
 
[¶7]      The other 
handwritten document signed by Janet Sue Lohry on August 1, 1997, reads as 
follows:

 
 
Dividend 
Distribution on 

Burnett 
Livestock Co.

 
 
            
Effective this date, all previous agreements regarding my shares in 
Burnett Livestock Co. are null and void.

 
 
            
This statement reflects my wishes and intent to distribute any dividends 
received from my 67 shares as follows:

 
 
1.  10% set aside for Federal 
tax;

2.  40% for my use;

3.  15% for Don 
Peitersen;

4.  15% for Carol Harriet; 

5.  10% for Helen A. 
Peitersen;

6.  5% for Kari Haswell; 
and

7.  5% for Bette 
Peitersen.

 
 
If 
Helen Peitersen should predease [sic] me, her 10% should be divided equally 
between Don and Carol.  If I am 
predeased [sic] by any others, it is at my discretion to determine 
distribution.

 
 
                                                
Janet S. Lohry

                                                
August 1, 1997

 
 
[¶8]      We can make 
several observations about this document.  
First, it declares null and void all previous agreements regarding Janet 
Sue Lohry's shares in the Company.  
Second, it purports to apply to dividends she would distribute during her 
lifetime.  Third, it changes the 
percentages of dividends set forth in the 1989 Agreement, as a side-by-side 
comparison shows:

 
 
            
1989 Agreement                                                      
1997 document

 
 
1.         Janet Sue 
Lohry and                                  
1.         
Janet Sue Lohry                  
40%

            
Helen Peitersen                   
50%                
2.         Helen 
Peitersen                   
10%

 
 
2.         
Donald Peitersen                 
12.5%             
3.         
Donald Peitersen                 
15%

 
 
3.         
Carol Harriet                         
12.5%             
4.         
Carol Harriet                         
15%

 
 
4.         
Kari Haswell                         
12.5%             
5.         
Kari Haswell                         
5%

 
 
5.         
Bette Peitersen                     
12.5%             
6.         
Bette Peitersen                     
5%

 
 
6.         
Federal tax                            
  0%                
7.         
Federal tax                            
10%

 
 
[¶9]      Before leaving 
our mention of these two handwritten documents dated August 1, 1997, we must 
note that in Lindsey's affidavit dated October 23, 2009, submitted in the 
summary judgment proceedings below, Lindsey stated that she did not find these 
two documents in her mother's effects until either 2007 or 2008, which was six 
or seven years after her mother's death and the probate of her mother's 1996 
will.  

 
 
[¶10]   On July 14, 1998, Lindsey's 
grandmother, Helen Peitersen, died, and there is no known probate of her 
estate.  On March 9, 2001, some 
three and a half years after she wrote the two documents dated August 1, 1997, 
referred to above, Janet Sue Lohry sent the following letter to Darlene Reiter, 
the Company's attorney:

 
 
            
As you are aware, due to health problems, it has become necessary for me 
to end my association with Burnett Livestock.  Enclosed you will find my 67 shares of 
Burnett Livestock, which I direct be transferred to my daughter, Christy 
Lindsey, [address and telephone number].  
Would ask that you contact Tricia Kenny to establish the effective date 
of transfer.

 
 
            
I would like to thank you for your advice and friendship over these years 
as we have fought to make Burnett Livestock that what my grandpa Davison had 
envisioned.  I wish you and everyone 
associated with Burnett Livestock the utmost success.  

 
 
Ms. 
Reiter likely received this letter on Monday, March 12, 2001. On March 23, 2001, 
Ms. Reiter mailed to Janet Sue Lohry the following letter:

 
 
Re:      Transfer of 
Burnett Livestock Company Stock Certificates

 
 
Dear 
Janet:

 
 
            
I will miss you, as I have really enjoyed your good humor.  I will think of you as the Honesty seeds 
grow.

 
 
            
You will find enclosed an Assignment Separate From Certificate, which you 
need to sign so that we can transfer your 67 shares of stock to 
Chris.

 
 
            
Since Chris will not be President until after the transfer, I am also 
enclosing her new certificate which you need to sign in the bottom right 
corner.  We have three other new 
certificates as well and I would like you to sign those  they are enclosed and 
follow Chris's certificate.

 
 
            
Please return everything to us in the enclosed stamped, self-addressed 
envelope.  If you have any 
questions, please call.  Thank 
you.  

 
 
[¶11]   Janet Sue Lohry, Lindsey's mother, 
died that same day, March 23, 2001, before she received Ms. Reiter's 
letter.  On April 2, 2001, Burnett 
Livestock Certificate No. 104, representing the sixty-seven shares that had been 
owned by Janet Sue Lohry, was issued to Lindsey. 

 
 
[¶12]   On August 7, 2001, Janet Sue 
Lohry's 1996 will was admitted to probate.  
On February 19, 2003, the court entered its Order Approving Final Account 
and Decree of Distribution.  As 
mentioned earlier, Janet Sue Lohry's 1996 will provided in pertinent part that 
her sixty-seven shares of Company stock were bequeathed to Lindsey subject to 
the terms of the 1989 Agreement.  
According to Lindsey, she did not find the 1989 Agreement until some time 
in either 2007 or 2008.  

 
 
[¶13]   On September 9, 2008, Appellees 
filed their complaint against Lindsey. They alleged in pertinent 
part:

 
 
1.         
Before her death, Helen Peitersen transferred to her daughter, Janet Sue 
Lohry, sixty-seven shares of the Company "upon the express promise and condition 
that . . . 13.4 of said shares be held for the benefit of each of the" 
Appellees;

 
 
2.         
Janet Lohry, having received such shares, in turn effected a transfer of 
those shares to her daughter Lindsey "upon the express condition and promise 
that . . .  13.4 of said shares be 
held for the benefit of each of" the Appellees;

 
 
3.         
Helen Peitersen's transfer of said shares "was made in reliance upon the 
express promise to hold" 13.4 of said shares for the benefit of each of the 
Appellees;

 
 
4.         
Lindsey, upon demand, has refused to transfer said 13.4 shares to each 
Appellee;

 
 
5.         
Lindsey's use and conversion of said shares to her own use unjustly 
enriches her to the Appellees' damage and detriment; 

 
 
6.         
Lindsey is unjustly enriched by the retention of such shares as her own 
individual property and any dividends paid thereon;

 
 
7.         
Appellees seek the court's imposition of a constructive trust upon the 
13.4 shares of the Company held for their benefit; the court's order requiring 
an accounting for any income related to those shares; the court's order 
compelling the transfer of those shares and any monies derived therefrom to each 
of the Appellees; and that Appellees be awarded their reasonable costs and 
attorney's fees and other relief as the court deems just and equitable.  

 
 
[¶14]   On October 15, 2008, Lindsey filed 
her answer to the complaint in which she admitted that she retained the 
sixty-seven shares of the Company stock given to her by her mother, Janet Sue 
Lohry, denied the other allegations contained in the complaint, and asserted 
several affirmative defenses.  
Later, on September 25, 2009, pursuant to court order, Lindsey filed an 
amended answer which restated her original answer and added other affirmative 
defenses, including that no clear and definite agreement existed so as to 
constitute a constructive trust.  

 
 
[¶15]   The parties then pursued 
discovery.  Both parties 
subsequently filed motions for summary judgment with supporting evidentiary 
materials and legal memoranda, Lindsey filing hers on October 23, 2009, and 
Appellees filing theirs on October 29, 2009.  On November 10, 2009, the district court 
heard the parties' arguments on the cross motions for summary judgment.  On November 13, 2009, the district court 
issued this brief decision letter:

 
 
Dear 
Counsel:

 
 
The 
above matter having come before the court upon motions for summary judgment, I 
find that there is no genuine dispute of material fact and that plaintiffs are 
entitled to judgment as a matter of law.  
The governing document is the agreement for disposition of rental and/or 
royalty income between Janet Lohry and Helen Peitersen dated February 20, 
1989.  The document is 
unambiguous.  Ownership of stock is 
transferred to Janet with the agreement that Janet shall distribute the 
dividends to various people, including plaintiffs.  This gives plaintiffs legally protected 
interests as third-party beneficiaries.  
It establishes that Janet has the legal right to only 50% of the 
dividends.  Thus, this is all that 
Janet could have transferred to defendant.  
No one has authority to terminate the rights of 
plaintiffs.

 
 
The 
elements for a constructive trust are satisfied.  There was a promise by Janet and a 
transfer of stock in reliance upon that promise.  Unjust enrichment would result if anyone 
relieved plaintiffs of their interests without permission.

 
 
Consequently, 
plaintiffs are entitled to relief through establishment of a constructive 
trust.  

 
 
[¶16]   On January 4, 2010, the district 
court filed its order granting summary judgment for Appellees and denying 
summary judgment for Lindsey.  The 
order reads:

 
 
            
THIS MATTER having come on before the Court upon the Motions for Summary 
Judgment by each of the parties, the Plaintiffs appearing by and through their 
attorney, Timothy J. Kirven of Kirven and Kirven, P.C. of Buffalo, Wyoming and 
the Defendant appearing by and through her attorney, Ann M. Rochelle, of 
Rochelle Law Offices, Casper, Wyoming, and the Court having reviewed the file 
herein, having heard the arguments of counsel, and being fully advised in the 
premises, finds that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that 
Plaintiffs are entitled to judgment as a matter of law.  The Court further finds that Plaintiffs 
are entitled to relief through establishment of a constructive trust as set 
forth herein.

 
 
            
WHEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the 
Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment be, and the same hereby is, 
granted;

 
 
            
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED by the Court that the 
Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment be, and the same is hereby is [sic] 
denied;

 
 
            
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED by the Court that pursuant to 
§ 4-10-102 of the Uniform Trust Code of the State of Wyoming, there is hereby 
established a trust, to be known as the Peitersen Heirs Trust, to be held and 
administered as follows:

 
 
1.         
Pursuant to this judgment, the beneficiaries of said trust shall be as 
follows:

 
 
A)        Carol 
A. Peitersen Harriet, her heirs, successors and 
assigns-12.5%[;]

 
 
B)        
Donald B. Peitersen, his heirs, successors and 
assigns-12.5%[;]

 
 
C)        Those 
remaining individuals specified and named in that certain Agreement for 
Disposition of Rental and/or Royalty Income dated February 20, 1989. (Lindsey 
deposition Exhibit No. 3)[.]

 
 
2.         
Pursuant to Wyoming Statute § 4-10-402, the Defendant shall, 
within twenty (20) days of the date of entry of this Summary Judgment, transfer 
the sixty-seven (67) shares of Burnett Livestock Company stock to the Peitersen 
Heirs Trust, which trust shall bear the same date as this Summary 
Judgment.

 
 
3.         
The initial qualified trustee of the trust shall be Christine A. 
Lindsey.

 
 
4.         
The principal place of administration of this trust shall be Natrona 
County, Wyoming and such trust shall be subject to continuing judicial 
supervision by this Court.  This 
Court shall have exclusive jurisdiction of proceedings in this state brought by 
trustee, or a beneficiary concerning the administration of the 
trust.

 
 
5.         
The interest of a beneficiary in this trust may be assigned by such 
beneficiary to the lineal descendants of Helen A. 
Peitersen.

 
 
6.         
To the extent permitted by law, the interest of the beneficiary in this 
trust is held subject to spendthrift restrictions which provide as 
follows:

 
 
To 
the full extent permitted by law, the interest of the beneficiaries hereunder 
shall not be anticipated, assigned, or encumbered unless specifically authorized 
by the terms of this Trust Agreement, and such interests shall not be subject to 
the claims of creditors of any beneficiary, or to legal process, prior to actual 
receipt by the beneficiary.

 
 
7.         
Mandatory distributions of all of the income of the trust, including 
income received by reason of, or interest upon distributions relating to the 67 
shares of Burnett Livestock shall be made within 20 days of the date of receipt 
of the same from Burnett Livestock Company.  Such distribution shall be a mandatory 
distribution as defined by Wyoming law.  
Such distributions shall include any and all accrued interest 
attributable to the distribution.

 
 
8.         
The beneficiaries of the trust shall be responsible for the payment of 
income tax due upon all income from the trust to the extent of the interest of 
the beneficiary.  The trustee shall 
cause to be timely issued all necessary tax reporting forms within 45 days of 
the end of the calendar year.  All 
beneficiaries of the trust shall be required to furnish to the trustee the 
proper tax identification number of the beneficiary as well as the beneficiary's 
proper and current address.

 
 
9.         
The trustee shall serve without compensation.

 
 
10.       The trustee 
shall be entitled to be reimbursed out of the trust property for the following 
expenses:

 
 
(i) 
        
Expenses properly incurred in the administration of the 
trust;

 
 
(ii)        An 
advance by the Trustee of money for the protection of the 
trust.

 
 
11.       No income, 
distributions, or other interest of a beneficiary shall be obligated or used for 
payment of any expenses or attorney fees not involving the interest of such 
beneficiary.

 
 
12.       The trustee 
shall administer the trust in good faith, in accordance with the terms and 
purposes in interest of the beneficiaries, and in accordance with the terms of 
this Summary Judgment and the provisions of Wyoming Statute § 4-10-802, 
Duty of Loyalty.

 
 
13.       The trustee 
shall keep adequate records of the administration of the trust as provided by 
Wyoming Statute § 4-10-810.

 
 
14.       The trustee 
shall keep trust property separate from the trustee's own property as provided 
by Wyoming Statute § 4-10-810.

 
 
15.       The trustee 
shall inform and report to the beneficiaries as required by Wyoming 
Statute § 4-10-813.

 
 
IT 
IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED by the Court that Plaintiffs have 
Judgment against the Defendant for the sum of FIFTEEN THOUSAND EIGHTEEN and 
NO/100 DOLLARS ($15,018.00); together with pre-judgment interest in the amount 
of $659.56; together with costs in the amount of $717.45; for a total Judgment 
of SIXTEEN THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED NINETY FIVE AND NO/100 ($16,395.00), which sum 
shall bear interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of entry of 
Judgment until fully paid.

 
 
IT 
IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED by the Court that the bond of 
Plaintiffs in the amount of $1,000.00 be, and the same hereby is released and 
ordered returned to Plaintiffs.

 
 
IT 
IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED by the Court that the sum of 
$10,043.23, together with all accrued interest thereon, on deposit with the 
Natrona County Clerk of the District Court be immediately distributed to 
Plaintiffs in the following manner:

 
 
12.5% 
to:                                
            
12.5% to:

Mr. 
Donald Peitersen                      
Ms. Carol Harriet

[address]                                            
[address]

 
 
75% 
to:

Ms. 
Christine Lindsey

[address]

 
 
Said 
payments shall be fully credited against the amount of the Judgment 
herein.

            

[¶17]   On January 26, 2010, Lindsey filed 
her motion for an order to stay execution on appeal with a supporting 
affidavit.  The district court took 
no action on that motion.  On 
February 1, 2010, Lindsey filed her notice of appeal.  

 
 

STANDARD 
OF REVIEW

 
 
[¶18]   In Lieberman v. Wyoming.com, LLC, 11 P.3d 353, 356 (Wyo. 2000), we recognized the following standard of review when the 
district court resolves a case by the grant and denial of cross motions for 
summary judgment, as in this case:

 
 
The 
district court resolved this case by the grant and denial of cross motions for 
summary judgment.  Generally, a 
denial of a motion for a summary judgment is not an appealable final order.  Wolter v. Equitable Resources Energy Co., 
Western Region, 979 P.2d 948, 953 (Wyo. 1999); Matter of Adoption of MSVW, 965 P.2d 1158, 1161 (Wyo. 1998).  However, 
there are exceptions to this rule.  
One exception we have adopted is that, when the district court grants one 
party's motion for a summary judgment and denies the opposing party's motion for 
a summary judgment and the district court's decision completely resolves the 
case, both the grant and the denial of the motions for a summary judgment are 
subject to appeal.  Matter of Adoption of MSVW, 965 P.2d  at 
1162.

 
 
The 
parties in this case filed opposing motions for a summary judgment.  Although Lieberman's motion was one for 
a partial summary judgment, the district court appears to have disposed of the 
entire case in a single order by denying Lieberman's motion and granting 
Wyoming.com's motion.  We will, 
therefore, afford review of the entire matter, including the denial of 
Lieberman's motion. Matter of Adoption of 
MSVW, 965 P.2d  at 1162.

 
 
Summary 
judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine issue as to any material fact 
and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.  W.R.C.P. 56(c); Snyder v. Lovercheck, 992 P.2d 1079, 
1083 (Wyo. 1999).  We review a 
summary judgment in the same light as the district court, using the same 
materials and following the same standards.  Id.; 40 North Corp. v. Morrell, 964 P.2d 423, 
426 (Wyo. 1998).  We examine the 
record from the vantage point most favorable to the party opposing the motion, 
and we give that party the benefit of all favorable inferences that may fairly 
be drawn from the record.  Id.  A material fact is one which, if proved, 
would have the effect of establishing or refuting an essential element of the 
cause of action or defense asserted by the parties.  Id. If the moving party presents 
supporting summary judgment materials demonstrating no genuine issue of material 
fact exists, the burden is shifted to the non-moving party to present 
appropriate supporting materials posing a genuine issue of a material fact for 
trial. Roberts v. Klinkosh, 986 P.2d 153, 155 (Wyo. 1999); Downen v. Sinclair 
Oil Corp., 887 P.2d 515, 519 (Wyo. 1994).  We review a grant of summary judgment 
deciding a question of law de novo and afford no deference to the district 
court's ruling.  Roberts v. Klinkosh, 986 P.2d  at 156; Blagrove v. JB Mechanical, Inc., 934 P.2d 1273, 1275 (Wyo. 1997).

 
 

DISCUSSION

 
 
[¶19]   The parties agree that a 
constructive trust is an equitable remedy imposed to compel a person who 
unfairly possesses a property interest to hold that property interest in trust 
for the person for whom, in equity and in good conscience, it should be 
held.  Baker v. Ayres & Baker Pole & Post, 
Inc., 2007 WY 185, ¶ 16, 170 P.3d 1247, 1251-52 (Wyo. 2007).   They also agree that the elements 
of a constructive trust are:  (1) a 
promise, either express or implied; (2) a transfer made in reliance upon that 
promise; and (3) unjust enrichment.  
Id.  The parties do not agree, however, on 
whether the evidence submitted in support of their respective motions for 
summary judgment established those elements.  According to the district court's 
decision letter, the governing document is the unambiguous 1989 Agreement 
between Helen Peitersen and Janet Sue Lohry, Lindsey's mother.  The district court read that agreement 
to mean that Helen Peitersen transferred her ownership of her sixty-seven shares 
of stock to Janet Sue Lohry with the agreement that Janet Sue Lohry shall 
distribute the dividends to various people, including the Appellees and that 
that agreement gave them legally protected interests as third-party 
beneficiaries.  The problem with 
this reasoning that Lindsey has identified, and with which we agree, is that 
Helen Peitersen did not transfer her sixty-seven shares to Janet Sue Lohry in 
this 1989 Agreement.  She had 
transferred those shares to Janet Sue Lohry almost eighteen months earlier with 
no conditions or obligations attached.  
There is no genuine issue of material fact on that important point.  There is no evidence that Janet Sue 
Lohry promised Helen Peitersen on August 14, 1987, when Helen Peitersen 
transferred her shares to Janet Sue Lohry on that date, that she would 
distribute dividends to their several relatives.  There is no evidence that Helen 
Peitersen transferred her shares on that date in reliance of such a promise from 
Janet Sue Lohry.  For these reasons, 
the district court's summary judgment in Appellees' favor cannot 
stand.

 
 
[¶20]   We are aware, of course, of the 
events that occurred following the 1989 Agreement, including Janet Sue Lohry's 
execution of her will on September 30, 1996, which by its provisions made Janet 
Sue Lohry's bequest of her shares to Lindsey subject to the 1989 Agreement; 
Janet Sue Lohry's execution of two handwritten documents dated August 1, 1997; 
Janet Sue Lohry's March 9, 2001, letter to the Company's attorney regarding the 
transfer of her shares to Lindsey; the Company attorney's March 23, 2001, letter 
to Janet Sue Lohry regarding that transfer and Janet Sue Lohry's death on that 
date; the issuance of the stock certificate to Lindsey on April 2, 2001; the 
probate of Janet Sue Lohry's 1996 will from 2001 to 2003; and Lindsey's not 
finding the 1989 Agreement and Janet Sue Lohry's August 1, 1997, writings until 
2007 or 2008.  There very well may 
be other legal issues concerning the import of all those events between 
Appellees, Lindsey, and the other relatives mentioned in the various documents 
in this voluminous record.  But 
those possible issues if they exist are not before this Court as they were not 
discretely raised, appropriately briefed, and decided below.  The only decision by the district court 
below is that addressed in its decision letter, which we reverse.  That court decided no other discrete 
issues, and we do not.

 
 
[¶21]   Reversed and 
remanded.