## Facts

- Eva G. Topping Briggs created and funded a revocable inter vivos living trust, naming herself and Wyoming National Bank of Casper as co-trustees.
- Eva and her husband, William G. Briggs, were married but maintained separate finances; Eva viewed William as a poor money manager and sought to limit his inheritance.
- Under the trust, Eva retained lifetime benefits and control, including receiving income, withdrawing principal, and amending or revoking the trust.
- Upon Eva’s death, the trust distributed interests to various relatives (“Family Share Beneficiaries”) and limited William to a one-seventeenth share; her will also left him certain personal property.
- The trust included (1) a waiver provision signed by William stating he waived rights to contest the trust or transfers to it and (2) a no-contest (in terrorem) clause.
- After Eva’s death, William filed a declaratory judgment action seeking to invalidate the trust, pull trust assets into the probate estate, and determine beneficiaries’ rights.
- The district court granted summary judgment upholding the trust but struck the no-contest clause as unenforceable.
- William appealed the trust’s validity; the Family Share Beneficiaries cross-appealed the invalidation of the no-contest clause.

## Issues

1. Whether a revocable inter vivos trust that reduces a surviving spouse’s inheritance violates Wyoming’s spousal elective share statutes.
2. Whether the trust was testamentary and invalid for failure to comply with will formalities.
3. Whether the trust was void as an illusory transfer because the settlor retained significant control and revocation powers.
4. Whether the trust was fraudulent or void as against public policy based on the circumstances surrounding execution and the spousal waiver.
5. Whether the trust’s no-contest clause is enforceable, and if so, whether an exception applies for a good-faith challenge supported by probable cause.

## Decision

- The Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment that the trust was a valid inter vivos trust and enforceable despite William’s challenges.
- The Court held the trust did not violate the elective share statutes because the statutory scheme did not extend the elective share to assets validly transferred to an inter vivos trust during life.
- The Court rejected the argument that the trust was testamentary, concluding it created present trust interests even though enjoyment was largely deferred until death.
- The Court rejected the claim of an illusory transfer, holding that retention of revocation, amendment, and withdrawal powers did not, by itself, negate the validity of a revocable living trust.
- The Court found no sufficient basis in the record to invalidate the trust on fraud or public policy grounds.
- On cross-appeal, the Court reversed the blanket invalidation of the no-contest clause, holding such clauses generally enforceable but not to penalize a beneficiary who contests in good faith and with probable cause.
- The judgment was affirmed in part and reversed in part.

## Legal Principles

- A properly created and funded inter vivos revocable trust is generally valid even if it reduces the surviving spouse’s expected inheritance; elective-share protection applies only as far as the governing statute provides.
- An inter vivos trust is not rendered testamentary merely because the settlor retains extensive lifetime control or because principal distributions to remainder beneficiaries occur at death.
- A transfer to a revocable trust is not “illusory” solely because the settlor retains powers to revoke, amend, or withdraw trust assets; the trust may still effect a legally meaningful lifetime transfer of beneficial interests.
- Fraud or invalidity based on execution circumstances requires evidentiary support sufficient to defeat summary judgment; conflicting accounts of understanding or disclosure do not automatically void an otherwise valid trust instrument.
- No-contest clauses in trusts are generally enforceable, but forfeiture should not be imposed where the contest is brought in good faith and supported by probable cause.

## Conclusion

The court upheld a revocable living trust as a valid inter vivos arrangement outside Wyoming’s elective-share reach absent statutory direction, and it recognized no-contest clauses as enforceable while protecting good-faith, probable-cause challenges from forfeiture.


Briggs v. Wyo. Nat'l Bank of Casper, 836 P.2d 263 (Wyo. 1992)