The Wyoming Uniform Trust Code, specifically Wyoming Statutes Annotated (W.S.A.) § 34-10-101 et seq., governs the creation and administration of trusts within the state. A key aspect of trust law is the concept of irrevocability and the ability to modify or terminate a trust. Under Wyoming law, a trust is generally irrevocable unless the terms of the trust expressly permit revocation or modification. However, even for irrevocable trusts, there are specific circumstances under which a trust may be modified or terminated. W.S.A. § 34-10-113 provides that a trustee or a qualified beneficiary may petition the court to modify or terminate a trust if the purposes of the trust have been fulfilled or have become unlawful, impossible, or impracticable to achieve. Furthermore, W.S.A. § 34-10-112 permits modification of a trust without the consent of all beneficiaries if, due to unanticipated circumstances, the continuation of the trust as written would defeat or substantially impair the accomplishment of the trust’s purposes. The question asks about the ability of a grantor to modify an irrevocable trust established in Wyoming. Generally, an irrevocable trust cannot be modified by the grantor after its creation, as the grantor has relinquished their right to alter the terms. However, if the trust instrument itself reserves the power to modify or revoke, then the grantor can indeed modify it. Absent such a reservation, or specific statutory provisions allowing modification of irrevocable trusts (which are typically for the benefit of beneficiaries due to changed circumstances, not for the grantor’s benefit), the grantor is bound by the terms of the irrevocable trust. Therefore, the grantor’s ability to modify an irrevocable trust in Wyoming is primarily dependent on whether the trust instrument explicitly reserves such a power.

The scenario involves a devisee who predeceases the testator, creating a potential lapse. In Wyoming, the anti-lapse statute, found in Wyoming Statutes Annotated § 2-3-101, generally prevents a devise from lapsing if the devisee is a grandparent or a lineal descendant of a grandparent of the testator and leaves a lineal descendant who survives the testator. In this case, Agnes’s devise to her son, Bartholomew, would not lapse because Bartholomew is a lineal descendant of Agnes’s grandparent (Agnes’s father), and Bartholomew has a surviving child, Clara, who is a lineal descendant of Bartholomew. Therefore, Clara will take the devise in Bartholomew’s place. The statute’s purpose is to effectuate the presumed intent of the testator that their property should pass to the devisee’s descendants when the devisee dies before the testator. This prevents the property from passing through intestacy or to other beneficiaries as if the predeceasing devisee had never been named, provided the statutory conditions are met. The statute applies to a devise of real or personal property. The key is the relationship of the predeceasing devisee to the testator and whether that devisee leaves surviving issue.

In Wyoming, the concept of a “holographic will” is not recognized. Wyoming law, specifically Wyoming Statute § 2-6-112, dictates that a will must be in writing, signed by the testator, and signed by at least two witnesses who sign in the testator’s presence. A will written entirely in the testator’s handwriting but not witnessed does not meet these statutory requirements for a valid will in Wyoming. Therefore, such a document would be considered invalid as a formal will and would not be admitted to probate. The estate would then pass according to the laws of intestacy in Wyoming, or any other valid will the testator may have executed. This distinction is crucial for understanding the formal requirements of testamentary intent and execution in the state.

The Wyoming Uniform Trust Code, specifically regarding the modification or termination of irrevocable trusts, provides mechanisms for beneficiaries to seek judicial intervention. Under Wyoming Statute § 34-10-701, a trustee may petition the court to modify or terminate a trust if the purposes of the trust have been fulfilled or have become unlawful, impossible, or impracticable to achieve. Furthermore, § 34-10-702 allows a trustee or beneficiaries to petition for modification or termination if the trust’s purposes have been fulfilled, or if it is impossible, illegal, or impracticable to continue the trust. A key aspect for beneficiaries to consider is the concept of “material purpose.” If an irrevocable trust has a material purpose that has not yet been fulfilled, it is generally more difficult to modify or terminate. However, Wyoming law, consistent with the Uniform Trust Code, permits modification if all beneficiaries consent and the court concludes that the modification or termination will not frustrate a material purpose of the trust, as outlined in § 34-10-702(a)(2). The scenario presented involves a trust with a stated purpose of providing for the education of the grantor’s grandchildren, which is a continuing purpose as long as there are eligible grandchildren. The beneficiaries’ desire to use the funds for immediate debt relief does not align with this educational purpose. Therefore, even with unanimous consent, a court would likely find that modifying the trust to allow for debt repayment would frustrate the grantor’s material purpose of providing education. The grantor’s intent, as expressed in the trust document, is paramount. Unless the trust document itself provides for such an alternative use, or the educational purpose has been fully achieved for all beneficiaries, judicial modification for debt relief would be unlikely. The question tests the understanding of the interplay between beneficiary consent, material purpose, and judicial modification of irrevocable trusts under Wyoming law.

The scenario involves a testamentary trust established under a Wyoming will. The trust instrument specifies that the income from the trust corpus, consisting of mineral royalties and agricultural land, is to be distributed to the testator’s son, Bartholomew, during his lifetime. Upon Bartholomew’s death, the trust corpus is to be divided equally among his surviving children. The key legal principle at play here is the rule against perpetuities (RAP), which in Wyoming, as in many other states, limits the duration for which property can be controlled by a trust. Wyoming has adopted the Uniform Statutory Rule Against Perpetuities (USRAP), Wyoming Statutes § 34-1-131 et seq. The USRAP generally validates a nonvested property interest if it actually vests or terminates within 90 years after its creation. In this case, the trust is created upon the testator’s death. Bartholomew is the measuring life. The trust terminates upon Bartholomew’s death and the corpus is distributed to his then-living children. Since Bartholomew’s children are ascertainable at his death (they are his children), and their interest vests upon his death, this interest is well within the 90-year period. Therefore, the trust is valid under Wyoming law. The question asks about the validity of the trust. The trust’s terms are clear and create a life estate for Bartholomew with a remainder interest to his children. The vesting of the remainder interest is tied to Bartholomew’s life, which is a life in being at the creation of the trust. Thus, the interest will vest within the perpetuity period.

Wyoming law, like many jurisdictions, recognizes the concept of a “pretermitted heir” or “omitted spouse” in certain circumstances. This doctrine protects individuals who are unintentionally left out of a will. Under Wyoming Statutes § 2-3-101, a person born or adopted after the execution of a will who is not provided for in the will and has not been provided for by any other means, and who is not mentioned in the will, is entitled to the same share of the estate as if the testator had died intestate. This applies to children. For omitted spouses, Wyoming Statutes § 2-3-102 addresses situations where a testator marries after executing a will. If the testator fails to provide for the new spouse in the will or by other means, and the spouse is not mentioned in the will, the spouse is entitled to a share of the estate unless certain exceptions apply, such as the will making provision for the spouse or the spouse being provided for by transfer outside the will with the intent that the transfer be in lieu of a testamentary provision. The key is the lack of provision and mention in the will, coupled with the intent that the will should be the primary testamentary document. In this scenario, Silas executed his will before marrying Elara. He did not mention Elara in his will, nor did he make any provision for her outside the will. Therefore, Elara qualifies as an omitted spouse under Wyoming law. She is entitled to the share she would have received if Silas had died intestate, which is typically one-half of the estate if Silas is survived by children, or the entire estate if he has no surviving issue. Assuming Silas has surviving issue, Elara would receive half of the estate.

Wyoming law, specifically Wyoming Statutes Annotated § 2-1-301, governs the revocation of wills. A will can be revoked by a subsequent will that expressly revokes the prior will or by a subsequent will that is wholly inconsistent with the prior will. Alternatively, a will can be revoked by a physical act of destruction performed with the intent to revoke. This physical act must be done by the testator or by someone in the testator’s presence and by the testator’s direction. The statute requires that the act of destruction itself must be done with the intent to revoke. Simply tearing the will into pieces without the specific intent to revoke at the moment of destruction does not effectuate revocation. In this scenario, while the testator tore the will, the explanation provided indicates that the intent to revoke was formed later, after the physical act. Therefore, the physical act of tearing, performed without the requisite intent at that time, does not constitute a valid revocation under Wyoming law. The will remains valid unless a subsequent valid revocation occurs.

In Wyoming, the Uniform Trust Code, as adopted and modified, governs the administration and interpretation of trusts. Specifically, regarding the termination of a trust, Wyoming law, consistent with the Uniform Trust Code, permits a trustee to terminate a trust if the trust purpose has become unlawful, contrary to public policy, or impossible to achieve. Additionally, a trust may be terminated if the trustee and all beneficiaries consent, provided the termination does not violate a material purpose of the trust. Another avenue for termination, under certain conditions, is if the trust property has a value that is insufficient to justify the cost of administration. This latter provision is often triggered by an economic assessment of the trust’s corpus relative to its ongoing expenses. For instance, if a trust holds assets valued at \$50,000, and the annual administrative costs, including trustee fees, accounting, and legal advice, amount to \$10,000, this represents 20% of the corpus annually. Such a disproportionate expense ratio would likely render the trust uneconomical to continue, allowing for termination. The Wyoming statute on trust termination, specifically focusing on uneconomical trusts, requires a judicial determination or consent of all beneficiaries and the trustee. However, the question presents a scenario where the trustee, acting unilaterally, terminates the trust due to its uneconomical nature. Wyoming law, under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 34-30-414, allows a trustee to terminate a trust if the trust property is not sufficient to justify the cost of administration. This provision does not require court approval or beneficiary consent if the trustee determines, in their discretion, that the trust is uneconomical. Therefore, the trustee’s action is permissible under Wyoming law.

Wyoming law, specifically Wyoming Statute § 2-1-301, governs the validity of wills. A will must be in writing, signed by the testator or by another person in the testator’s presence and by the testator’s direction, and attested to by at least two competent witnesses. These witnesses must sign the will in the presence of the testator. The scenario describes a will that was signed by the testator, Beatrice, and by a notary public. However, it does not mention any attesting witnesses who signed in the presence of Beatrice. While a notary public’s seal and signature can authenticate a document, it does not substitute for the statutory requirement of two attesting witnesses for a formal will in Wyoming. Therefore, the will is not valid as a formal will. Wyoming does not recognize holographic wills (wills written entirely in the testator’s handwriting) unless they also meet the witness requirements, nor does it have specific provisions for nuncupative wills (oral wills) beyond very limited circumstances not present here. The absence of the required attesting witnesses renders the document invalid as a formal will in Wyoming.

The scenario involves a testamentary trust established in Wyoming that requires a distribution of income. The trust instrument specifies that the net income shall be distributed to the settlor’s daughter, Elara, during her lifetime, with the remainder to her issue. Wyoming law, specifically Wyoming Statutes Annotated § 34-1-102, defines “issue” to include all lineal descendants of any degree. Therefore, if Elara has a child, Kael, and a grandchild, Lyra (Kael’s child), both are considered Elara’s issue. The question asks about the proper distribution of net income. Since the trust directs net income to Elara during her lifetime, and she is alive, the income is to be paid to her. The remainder is to her issue, which means her descendants. The specific question is about the distribution of the net income, not the principal. The trust language is clear: “net income shall be distributed to Elara during her lifetime.” This is a simple life estate in the income. The existence or number of her issue is relevant for the remainder interest, but not for the current income distribution. The crucial point is that Elara is alive and the income is to be paid to her.

The scenario presented involves a testamentary trust established by a Wyoming resident, Eleanor Vance, for the benefit of her grandson, Finn. The trust instrument specifies that Finn is to receive income from the trust for his life, with the remainder to be distributed to his children upon his death. A crucial element is the provision that if Finn dies without surviving issue, the remainder shall pass to Eleanor’s niece, Clara. Wyoming law, specifically through the Uniform Trust Code as adopted in Wyoming Statutes Annotated Title 4, Chapter 10, governs the interpretation and administration of trusts. When a trust beneficiary, like Finn, has a contingent remainder interest that is subject to an unmet condition precedent (in this case, surviving his children), that interest is generally considered a mere expectancy and does not pass to his heirs or beneficiaries under his will or intestacy laws. This is because the contingency has not yet occurred. The language “remainder to be distributed to his children” creates a class gift that will only vest in Finn’s children who survive him. If Finn dies without any surviving children, the condition for the remainder passing to Clara is met. Therefore, Clara’s contingent remainder interest is a vested interest subject to divestment only if Finn has surviving issue. Upon Finn’s death without surviving issue, the condition precedent to Clara’s remainder interest is satisfied, and the trust property will pass to Clara, or if Clara is deceased, to her heirs or beneficiaries as per her own estate plan, unless the trust instrument specifies otherwise. The Wyoming Uniform Trust Code provides guidance on the distribution of trust property when beneficiaries predecease the settlor or other beneficiaries, and the principle of satisfying conditions precedent for remainder interests is fundamental. The trust document explicitly names Clara as the recipient of the remainder in the event Finn dies without issue, making her interest a valid contingent remainder that vests upon the occurrence of that specific event.

Wyoming law, specifically under Wyoming Statutes Annotated (Wyo. Stat. Ann.) § 2-6-101 et seq., governs the validity and interpretation of wills. A will is generally considered valid if it is in writing, signed by the testator or by another person in the testator’s presence and by the testator’s direction, and attested to by at least two competent witnesses. These witnesses must sign the will in the presence of the testator. The concept of “testamentary intent” is crucial; the testator must intend for the document to dispose of their property upon death. In Wyoming, there is no requirement for a will to be holographic (written entirely in the testator’s handwriting) or to be executed in any specific manner beyond the general attestation requirements, unless it falls under specific exceptions like nuncupative wills (oral wills), which are extremely limited in scope and generally not recognized for significant property disposition. The scenario describes a document clearly intended to distribute property upon death, written and signed by the testator, and witnessed by two individuals who also signed. This meets the statutory requirements for a valid will in Wyoming. The fact that the witnesses were not present when the testator signed, but the testator acknowledged their signature to them, and the witnesses then signed in the testator’s presence, satisfies the attestation requirement under Wyoming law. This sequence ensures that the witnesses are attesting to the testator’s signature and the document’s authenticity. The absence of a specific mention of a self-proving affidavit does not invalidate the will; it merely means the will may require formal probate testimony from the witnesses to establish its validity, rather than relying on the affidavit’s presumption.

The Wyoming Uniform Trust Code, specifically Wyoming Statutes Annotated § 34-10-117, addresses the enforceability of no-contest clauses (also known as in terrorem clauses). These clauses are generally enforceable in Wyoming, but with significant exceptions. A beneficiary who contests a will or trust provision in good faith and with probable cause is typically not penalized by the no-contest clause, even if the contest is unsuccessful. This public policy exception is crucial for preventing frivolous litigation while still allowing beneficiaries to challenge potentially invalid or unfair provisions without fear of disinheritance for legitimate reasons. The statute aims to balance the settlor’s intent with the beneficiary’s right to access the courts for valid grievances. The question asks about the enforceability of a no-contest clause when a beneficiary contests a trust provision based on undue influence, which is a common ground for challenging testamentary instruments. Undue influence, if proven, would render the trust provision voidable. Therefore, a contest based on undue influence, when brought in good faith and with probable cause, falls under the protective exception to the enforceability of no-contest clauses in Wyoming. The scenario explicitly states the beneficiary has probable cause to believe undue influence was exerted, which is the key determinant for the exception to apply.

In Wyoming, the Uniform Trust Code, adopted with modifications, governs the administration of trusts. A key aspect of trust administration involves the duties of a trustee. One such duty is the duty of loyalty, which requires a trustee to administer the trust solely in the interest of the beneficiaries. This duty prohibits self-dealing and requires the trustee to avoid conflicts of interest. If a trustee breaches the duty of loyalty, beneficiaries have recourse. Wyoming Statute § 34-39-502 outlines the trustee’s duties, including the duty to administer the trust impartially and in the best interests of all beneficiaries. A breach of this duty can lead to remedies such as removal of the trustee, recovery of damages, or voiding of transactions. When a trustee engages in a transaction that benefits them personally at the expense of the trust, such as selling trust property to themselves for less than fair market value, this constitutes a clear breach of the duty of loyalty. The beneficiaries can then petition the court for appropriate relief. The question describes a scenario where a trustee, Ms. Albright, sells trust property to her son, who is also a beneficiary, at a price below its appraised value. This action directly violates the duty of loyalty as it prioritizes the interests of one beneficiary (her son) and potentially harms the interests of other beneficiaries by diminishing the trust’s assets. Therefore, Ms. Albright has breached her fiduciary duty.

Wyoming law, specifically the Wyoming Uniform Trust Code (WUTC), governs the modification and termination of trusts. Under WUTC § 36-17-401, a trustee may proceed with a trust modification or termination if the trust instrument expressly permits it or if all beneficiaries consent and the modification or termination does not violate a material purpose of the trust. If the trust instrument does not grant the trustee such authority, and the beneficiaries do not unanimously consent, or if the modification or termination would violate a material purpose, the trustee or a beneficiary may petition the court for approval. The court can approve a modification or termination if it is consistent with the trust’s purpose, if it is for the benefit of beneficiaries whose consent cannot be obtained, or if it is to correct a mistake or address unforeseen circumstances. In this scenario, the trust instrument is silent on modification and termination. While all beneficiaries agree, the trust’s purpose of providing long-term support for the grandchildren and ensuring their education remains a material purpose. Terminating the trust prematurely to distribute assets outright would likely frustrate this core objective. Therefore, court approval would be necessary, and the court would evaluate whether the proposed distribution aligns with the trust’s original intent or if it would violate a material purpose. Given the stated purpose of long-term support and education, outright distribution might be seen as a violation of that material purpose, making court approval unlikely without a compelling demonstration that the original purpose is no longer achievable or relevant. The question asks about the trustee’s ability to proceed *without court intervention*. Since the trust instrument is silent and a material purpose exists, the trustee cannot unilaterally modify or terminate the trust.

In Wyoming, the Uniform Trust Code (UTC), as adopted and potentially modified by state statute, governs the administration of trusts. Specifically, Wyoming Statute § 34-27-501 outlines the duties of a trustee. This statute establishes that a trustee has a duty to administer the trust solely in the interest of the beneficiaries and in accordance with its terms. This encompasses the duty of loyalty, which requires the trustee to avoid conflicts of interest and not engage in self-dealing. The duty of prudence, also codified, mandates that a trustee must administer the trust with the care, skill, and competence of a prudent person whose circumstances are similar to those of the trustee. This includes making reasonable efforts to ascertain the trust property and identifying beneficiaries. Furthermore, a trustee has a duty to keep beneficiaries reasonably informed about the administration of the trust and to respond promptly to reasonable requests for information. The Wyoming statutes do not permit a trustee to delegate their entire fiduciary responsibility, although they may delegate tasks that a prudent person of comparable skills would delegate. The scenario describes a trustee who, without proper justification or beneficiary consent, delegates all investment decisions to an unqualified friend, violating the duty of prudence and potentially the duty of loyalty. The trustee is responsible for the actions of a delegate to the same extent as if the trustee had acted personally, unless the trustee properly delegated the task according to the UTC. Therefore, the trustee remains liable for any losses resulting from this improper delegation.

Wyoming law, specifically Wyoming Statutes Annotated (Wyo. Stat. Ann.) § 2-6-101, governs the requirements for a valid will. A will must be in writing, signed by the testator, or in the testator’s name by another individual in the testator’s conscious presence and by the testator’s direction. Furthermore, the will must be attested to by at least two competent witnesses who sign the will in the presence of the testator. These witnesses must be at least 14 years of age. The scenario describes a will that was signed by the testator and then signed by one witness. The second witness signed the will a week later, but crucially, not in the testator’s presence. This subsequent signing by the second witness outside the testator’s presence renders the will invalid under Wyoming law. The requirement that witnesses sign in the testator’s presence is a fundamental safeguard to prevent fraud and ensure the testator’s intent is accurately reflected. Therefore, the will fails to meet the statutory requirements for proper attestation in Wyoming.

In Wyoming, a trust can be terminated or modified by the beneficiaries under certain circumstances. Wyoming Statute § 34-28-111 provides that a trustee may, with the consent of all beneficiaries, terminate an irrevocable trust if the trustee reasonably believes the value of the trust property is insufficient to justify the costs of administration. Furthermore, Wyoming Statute § 34-28-110 allows for the modification or termination of a trust upon the consent of all beneficiaries and the settlor, if the settlor is still living, provided the modification or termination is not inconsistent with a material purpose of the trust. In this scenario, the settlor, Elara Vance, is deceased, and the trust is irrevocable. The beneficiaries, Finn and Clara, unanimously agree to terminate the trust because the administrative costs are disproportionately high relative to the trust’s corpus, which is a valid reason for termination under Wyoming law, specifically when the value is insufficient to justify administration costs. Therefore, the trustee has the authority to terminate the trust with the beneficiaries’ consent.

Wyoming law, specifically under Wyoming Statutes Annotated Title 2, governs the administration of estates. When a decedent dies intestate, meaning without a valid will, Wyoming law dictates the distribution of the estate through its intestacy statutes. The primary rule for intestate succession in Wyoming is that the surviving spouse and descendants inherit. If there is a surviving spouse and no descendants, the spouse inherits the entire estate. If there are descendants and a surviving spouse, the spouse typically inherits a portion, and the descendants inherit the remainder. The specific share depends on whether the descendants are solely the issue of the surviving spouse. Wyoming Statutes Annotated § 2-4-101 outlines these rules. In this scenario, Bartholomew dies intestate, survived by his spouse, Clementine, and two children, Agnes and Bartholomew Jr. Since Bartholomew is survived by his spouse and descendants, the estate is divided between them. Under Wyoming law, the surviving spouse receives the first \( \$50,000 \) of the estate plus one-half of the remaining estate, and the descendants share the other half of the remaining estate equally. The total estate value is \( \$300,000 \). The surviving spouse, Clementine, receives \( \$50,000 \) plus one-half of the remaining estate. Remaining estate after the spouse’s initial share = \( \$300,000 – \$50,000 = \$250,000 \). Clementine’s share of the remaining estate = \( \frac{1}{2} \times \$250,000 = \$125,000 \). Clementine’s total share = \( \$50,000 + \$125,000 = \$175,000 \). The remaining half of the estate goes to the descendants. Descendants’ share of the remaining estate = \( \$125,000 \). This \( \$125,000 \) is divided equally between the two children, Agnes and Bartholomew Jr. Each child’s share = \( \frac{\$125,000}{2} = \$62,500 \). Therefore, Clementine receives \( \$175,000 \), Agnes receives \( \$62,500 \), and Bartholomew Jr. receives \( \$62,500 \). The question asks for the total amount received by the surviving spouse.

Wyoming law, specifically under Wyoming Statutes Annotated (Wyo. Stat. Ann.) § 2-6-101, defines a will as an instrument that directs the disposition of a person’s property upon death. A holographic will, which is entirely in the testator’s handwriting, is recognized in Wyoming without the need for attesting witnesses, provided it meets the statutory requirements. The question concerns the validity of a will where a portion of the dispositive provisions is in the testator’s handwriting, but a significant, operative clause is typed. Wyoming Statute § 2-6-102 addresses wills not executed by signature and attestation, which pertains to nuncupative wills and holographic wills. A key aspect of holographic wills is that the *entire* will must be in the testator’s handwriting. If any material part of the dispositive provisions is typed or written by another person, even if signed by the testator, it generally fails as a holographic will. However, Wyoming law also recognizes the concept of partial invalidity. If a will is validly executed under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 2-6-101 (requiring signature and attestation by two witnesses), but contains provisions that are illegal or against public policy, those specific provisions may be struck down while the rest of the will remains valid. In this scenario, the typed portion of the will, specifically the clause designating the residuary beneficiary, is a material dispositive provision. Since the will is not entirely in the testator’s handwriting, it cannot be admitted to probate as a holographic will. Furthermore, if the will was not properly attested by two witnesses as required by Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 2-6-101 for a formal will, the entire document would be invalid. Assuming for the purpose of this question that the will was otherwise properly executed as a formal will, the typed residuary clause would be invalid as a holographic provision. The question hinges on the distinction between a holographic will and a formal will with an invalid provision. Since the residuary clause is typed and constitutes a material dispositive provision, and the question implies the *entire* will is not in the testator’s handwriting, it fails as a holographic will. If it was intended as a formal will, the typed residuary clause would be problematic if it wasn’t properly integrated into a valid formal execution. However, the most direct interpretation given the context of holographic wills and the partial typed provision is that it cannot stand as a valid holographic will. The question is designed to test the strict requirement for holographic wills. The typed residuary clause prevents it from being a valid holographic will. The consequence is that the property subject to that clause would pass by intestacy in Wyoming.

Wyoming law, specifically Wyoming Statute § 2-6-101, defines the requirements for a valid will. A will must be in writing, signed by the testator, or by another person in the testator’s presence and by the testator’s direction. Furthermore, it must be attested to by at least two credible witnesses who sign the will in the testator’s presence. These witnesses must be at least 14 years old. The scenario describes a will signed by the testator, Elias Vance, and then signed by his attending physician, Dr. Anya Sharma, and his nurse, Mr. Ben Carter, in Elias’s presence. Both Dr. Sharma and Mr. Carter are over 14 years old. Therefore, the will meets the statutory requirements for validity in Wyoming. The key is that the witnesses must sign in the testator’s presence, which is satisfied here. The fact that one of the witnesses is the testator’s physician does not, by itself, invalidate the will under Wyoming law, provided they meet the age and signing requirements and are not beneficiaries under the will (which is not indicated as a factor in this scenario).

In Wyoming, the Uniform Trust Code, as adopted and modified, governs the administration of trusts. Specifically, Wyoming Statutes Title 4, Chapter 10, addresses trusts. When a trustee has discretion to distribute income or principal to a beneficiary, and that beneficiary is also a creditor, the trustee’s ability to withhold distribution to frustrate the creditor’s claim is limited by the concept of a “discretionary trust” and the rights of creditors. Wyoming law, like many jurisdictions, distinguishes between pure discretionary trusts and trusts where the trustee has an “ascertainable standard” for distribution (e.g., for health, education, maintenance, and support). In a pure discretionary trust, the trustee has absolute discretion, and a creditor generally cannot compel a distribution. However, if the trustee abuses this discretion or if the trust is deemed illusory or created to defraud creditors, courts may intervene. Wyoming Statute § 4-10-504(a) states that a creditor can generally reach the interest of a beneficiary in a trust only to the extent that the trustee has made a distribution of income or principal to the beneficiary or has been directed to make a distribution. However, the statute also addresses situations where a beneficiary is also the settlor, or where the trustee’s discretion is not absolute. In the scenario presented, the trustee has discretion to distribute for the beneficiary’s “benefit,” which is broad but not as specific as an “ascertainable standard.” Wyoming law generally allows a creditor to reach a beneficiary’s interest in a trust if the trustee has discretion to distribute to the beneficiary, unless the discretion is solely to pay for the beneficiary’s support or education, or if the trust is a “spendthrift trust” with a valid spendthrift provision preventing creditors from reaching the trust. However, even with a spendthrift provision, a creditor can typically reach distributions that have already been made to the beneficiary. In this case, the creditor is seeking to reach distributions that have already been made to the beneficiary, not to compel future distributions. Wyoming Statute § 4-10-506, concerning discretionary trusts, states that a creditor can’t compel a distribution unless the trustee has abused the discretion. However, Wyoming Statute § 4-10-502 concerning spendthrift provisions, generally protects trust assets from creditors, but distributions already made to the beneficiary are no longer trust assets and are therefore subject to the beneficiary’s creditors. Thus, the creditor can reach the funds once they have been distributed to the beneficiary. The key distinction is between compelling a distribution and reaching a distribution that has already been made.

In Wyoming, a testamentary trust is a trust that is created by a will. Upon the testator’s death, the will becomes effective, and the trust is established. The administration of a testamentary trust is governed by the terms of the will and the Wyoming Probate Code. Wyoming Statutes § 2-6-101 et seq. outline the general provisions for wills and their probate. Specifically, the creation of a trust within a will is a common estate planning tool. The trustee appointed in the will is responsible for managing the trust assets for the benefit of the beneficiaries according to the instructions in the will. This includes duties such as investing assets, distributing income and principal, and accounting to the beneficiaries. Unlike an inter vivos trust, which is created during the grantor’s lifetime, a testamentary trust does not exist until the testator’s death and the probate of the will. The Wyoming Uniform Trust Code, primarily found in Wyoming Statutes § 4-10-101 et seq., also applies to trusts, including testamentary trusts, once they are established. The key distinction for this question lies in the timing of the trust’s creation and its administration within the probate process. The assets are transferred to the trust after the will is probated and the executor has completed their duties, or the executor may be the same individual as the trustee.

In Wyoming, the concept of a holographic will, which is entirely in the testator’s handwriting and signed, is not recognized as a valid will. Wyoming law requires that a will be in writing, signed by the testator, and attested to by two credible witnesses who sign the will in the testator’s presence. This requirement is codified in Wyoming Statutes § 2-6-102. Therefore, a document that is entirely handwritten by the testator but lacks the required witness attestation would fail to meet the statutory requirements for a valid will in Wyoming. The purpose of the witness requirement is to prevent fraud and undue influence, ensuring that the document truly represents the testator’s intent. Without these witnesses, the document, regardless of its handwritten nature, is considered invalid as a formal will.

In Wyoming, the concept of a “living will” or “advance directive” is primarily governed by the Wyoming Advance Health Care Directive Act. This act allows an individual to make specific directions regarding their future medical treatment, including the withholding or withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment, in the event they become incapacitated and unable to communicate their wishes. A key element is the requirement for such directives to be in writing and signed by the principal, or by another person in the principal’s presence and at the principal’s direction. Furthermore, the directive must be signed in the presence of two witnesses, who are at least 18 years old and not named as beneficiaries in the advance directive or directly involved in the principal’s healthcare. These witnesses attest to the principal’s signature and their belief that the principal was of sound mind and acting voluntarily. The Act also specifies who may make a health care decision if no advance directive exists, prioritizing a spouse, adult children, parents, adult siblings, and other relatives or friends. The efficacy of an advance directive is contingent upon strict adherence to these execution requirements. Therefore, a directive that is not properly witnessed or is signed by individuals who are disqualified witnesses would likely be deemed invalid under Wyoming law, leaving decisions to be made by the statutory hierarchy of surrogate decision-makers.

Wyoming law, specifically Wyoming Statutes Annotated (Wyo. Stat. Ann.) § 2-1-301 et seq., governs the admissibility of wills. A will must be in writing, signed by the testator, or by another person in the testator’s conscious presence and at the testator’s direction. Furthermore, the will must be attested to by at least two credible witnesses. These witnesses must sign the will in the testator’s presence. The purpose of these requirements is to prevent fraud and undue influence, ensuring that the document reflects the testator’s true intent. In this scenario, the holographic portion of the document, while signed by the testator, lacks the required attestation by two witnesses. Therefore, it cannot be admitted to probate as a formal will. However, Wyoming law also recognizes holographic wills under certain circumstances, but this document does not qualify as a holographic will because it is not entirely in the testator’s handwriting. Since the document fails to meet the requirements for either a formal will or a holographic will under Wyoming law, it is invalid.

The scenario involves a testamentary trust established by a Wyoming resident, Elara Vance, for the benefit of her grandchild, Finn. The trust instrument specifies that upon Elara’s death, her residuary estate is to be held in trust for Finn until he reaches the age of 25. During this period, the trustee has discretion to distribute income and principal for Finn’s health, education, maintenance, and support (HEMS). Upon Finn reaching 25, the trust corpus is to be distributed outright to him. Elara’s will was properly executed, and the trust provisions are clear. Wyoming law, specifically the Uniform Trust Code as adopted in Wyoming Statutes Annotated (Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 4-10-101 et seq.), governs the interpretation and administration of this trust. The HEMS standard is a common fiduciary duty, requiring the trustee to act reasonably and in good faith when making discretionary distributions. The trust’s provision for outright distribution at age 25 signifies a vested interest in the remainder, subject to the condition subsequent of reaching that age. If Finn were to predecease Elara, the trust would fail unless the will provided an alternative beneficiary, which is not indicated here. The question asks about the status of the trust if Finn dies before reaching 25. Under Wyoming law, if a beneficiary of a trust dies before the trust’s termination or the fulfillment of a condition precedent to distribution, and the trust instrument does not specify an alternative disposition of the trust property, the trust typically fails, and the property reverts to the settlor’s estate or passes according to the laws of intestacy or a residuary clause in the will that captures such lapsed gifts. In this case, since Finn has a vested interest contingent on reaching 25, his death before that age would mean the condition for outright distribution is not met. The trust would terminate upon Finn’s death, and the assets would likely pass as part of Elara’s residuary estate, or if Elara’s residuary estate had already been distributed, it would pass according to Wyoming’s laws of intestacy as if Elara had died at the time of Finn’s death without a will, or to any contingent beneficiaries named in the will. Assuming no contingent beneficiaries are named for this specific trust provision, the most accurate outcome is that the trust terminates and the assets are returned to Elara’s estate.

The scenario involves a testamentary trust established in Wyoming. The trust instrument specifies that the income from the trust corpus, which consists of mineral royalties from land located in Wyoming, is to be distributed to the settlor’s daughter, Elara, during her lifetime. Upon Elara’s death, the trust corpus is to be distributed outright to Elara’s children who survive her. Wyoming law, specifically the Uniform Principal and Income Act (Wyoming Statutes Chapter 34, Title 34, Chapter 34, Article 10), governs the allocation of receipts and disbursements between income and principal. Mineral royalties are typically considered depleting assets. Under the Uniform Principal and Income Act, receipts from a resource that is part of the principal without the need for further extraction, such as royalties from a mineral lease, are generally allocated to principal. However, if the settlor or trustee regularly engages in the business of extracting natural resources, a different allocation may apply. In this case, the royalties are derived from existing mineral rights, and there is no indication that the trustee is actively engaged in the business of extraction. Therefore, the receipts from the mineral royalties are to be allocated to principal. Since Elara is entitled to the income from the trust, and the royalties are allocated to principal, no income is generated for distribution to Elara from these specific receipts. The corpus is to be distributed to Elara’s surviving children upon her death, meaning the principal will be distributed to them.

Wyoming law, specifically the Wyoming Uniform Trust Code, governs the modification and termination of trusts. A trustee’s duty of loyalty and impartiality is paramount. When a trust becomes uneconomical to administer due to its size, Wyoming Statute § 34-30-414 provides a mechanism for modification. This statute allows a trustee to modify or terminate a trust if the trust property is insufficient to accomplish the purposes of the trust, and the trustee reasonably believes that the settlor would have intended to achieve the trust’s purposes by continuing the trust, or that modification or termination will further the purposes of the trust. The statute also requires notice to qualified beneficiaries and the settlor, if living, and allows for objections. In this scenario, the trust corpus has diminished significantly. The trustee’s concern about the uneconomical administration and the potential for modification or termination to better serve the trust’s beneficiaries aligns with the statutory provisions. The trustee must consider whether continuing the trust, given its reduced size, would be more burdensome than beneficial, and whether terminating it and distributing the remaining assets would more effectively fulfill the original intent, even if indirectly. The key is the trustee’s reasonable belief that the trust’s purpose is better served by termination due to the uneconomical nature of its continued administration.

In Wyoming, the Uniform Trust Code, as adopted and modified by state law, governs the administration of trusts. Specifically, Wyoming Statute § 34-27-814 addresses the effect of a change in the situs of a trust. This statute provides that if the trustee and a qualified beneficiary consent to change the trust’s situs to a jurisdiction other than Wyoming, and the trustee moves the trust’s administration to that new jurisdiction, the trustee is no longer subject to the jurisdiction of Wyoming courts. This consent requirement is crucial for the effective transfer of a trust’s legal home. The statute also outlines procedures for notifying other interested parties and ensuring that the move is consistent with the trust’s terms and the beneficiaries’ interests. It’s important to note that this provision is designed to facilitate efficient trust administration when circumstances warrant a change in governing law and location, provided the necessary consents are obtained. The statute does not require court approval for such a change if all necessary parties agree.