Court Opinion

ID: 9553669
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 19:33:18.957914+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:32:02.111473
License: Public Domain

THOMAS, Justice,
dissenting.
I, too, must dissent from the resolution of the issues according to part II of the majority opinion. Expressed as a syllogism, that aspect of the majority opinion must be stated as:
• Wes Kerper made a contract with his wife, Hazel, to dispose of his property in a particular way in his will.
• Wes Kerper disposed of his property in a different way in his will.
• Therefore, Wes Kerper performed his contract with his wife.
Justice Brown has succinctly noted that this resolution is not supported by the law. It is not supported by logic either. Therefore, without justification in either law or logic, it is not supported. That’s logic.
I know that the statue of Justice normally is depicted with a blindfold on the figure. The blindfold is symbolic of the absence of bias. It does not justify overlooking the law or the facts, nor does it serve to permit *940Justice to ignore the scale and conclude that the lighter weights are heavier or vice versa.
I have heard judicial figures complain of result-oriented decisions. Now, I more fully appreciate those complaints. Perhaps I was hasty in saying that the majority decision is not supported; it finds its support in the result that the majority chose.
At one juncture, it occurred to me that perhaps the result could be supported because of the failure to present the claim of the disenfranchised trust beneficiaries in the probate proceeding for Wes Kerper’s estate. Hawkey v. Williams, 72 Wyo. 20, 261 P.2d 48 (1953), dispels that notion. The only conclusion I can reach is that the trial court appropriately and dispassionately invoked and applied the remedies for breach of contract to make a will. While the result may appear to be harsh, I see no way to avoid the dictates of precedent.
I would affirm the trial court with respect to its order directing reimbursement to the trust of the assets or the value thereof distributed to the Kerper daughters in the probate proceedings.
I regret the fact that my efforts to articulate my position in this case have provoked such an impassioned response, but I see no need to recede from my position.