Barnette v McNulty | Law Case Explained @QuimbeeDotCom
Barnette v McNulty | Law Case Explained  @QuimbeeDotCom
Uploaded June 2025 | Updated September 2026, 3 weeks ago
Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 42,700 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 988 casebooks ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview

Barnette v McNulty | 21 Ariz. App. 127, 516 P.2d 583 (1973)

If a settler creates a revocable trust, how may it be revoked?

The court considered that question in Barnett versus McNulty.

Wilson Barnett solely owned his moving and storage business, VanPak of Arizona Incorporated.

Wilson's wife, Margaret, showed him a book on avoiding probate.

From the book, Wilson executed a form entitled declaration of trust. In it, Wilson declared himself the trustee of his Vanpak shares.

Upon Wilson's death, Margaret would be appointed successor trustee to transfer all his shares of the trust to herself as the beneficiary.

The trust agreement reserved to Wilson the right during his lifetime to amend or revoke the trust. It listed three acts that would constitute evidence of revocation.

Delivery of written notice to the issuer of the shares that the trust is revoked, Wilson's transfer of right, title, and interest in the shares, or, delivery of notice of the beneficiary's death to the issuer of the shares.

Wilson, of course, was the issuer of the shares. Wilson never transferred the shares to himself as trustee, either on the corporate books or on the stock certificates.

A few months later, Wilson and Margaret both filed for divorce.

Wilson told his attorney, James McNulty, that VanPACK was Wilson's separate property, that Margaret owned no interest in it, and that Wilson wanted his son to succeed to his interest in it. At Wilson's behest, McNulty drafted a will, referring to Wilson as VanPact's sole owner. Wilson then executed the will.

Wilson consulted Fred Talmadge, another attorney, regarding his divorce.

Wilson confirmed to Talmadge that Van Paack belonged to Wilson, and that Margaret didn't have any ownership interest in it. Shortly thereafter, Wilson died with Margaret at his bedside.

Wilson had named McNulty the executor of Wilson's estate. Margaret presented the trust to McNulty, who refused to honor it. McNulty asserted that Wilson hadn't transferred the Vanpak shares to the trust on the corporate books or on the stock certificates.

Margaret sued McNulty, seeking distribution of the trust property to her. The trial court entered judgment for McNulty, and Margaret appealed to the Arizona Court of Appeals.

Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: [insert link of case brief on Quimbee]

The Quimbee App features over 42,700 case briefs keyed to 988 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview

Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: quimbee.com/cases/barnette-v-mcnulty?preview=true

Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here:

Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=QuimbeeDotCom

Quimbee Case Brief App ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview

Facebook ► facebook.com/quimbeedotcom

Twitter ► twitter.com/quimbeedotcom

#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries
Barnette v McNulty | Law Case ExplainedFerrero Construction Co. v. Dennis Rourke Corp. Case Brief Summary | Law Case ExplainedMeriwether v. Hartop Case Brief Summary | Law Case ExplainedEichenwald v. Rivello Case Brief Summary | Law Case ExplainedGeorgia v. Public.Resource.Org Inc. Case Brief Summary | Law Case ExplainedTrimble v. Gordon Case Brief Summary | Law Case ExplainedCharles O. Finley & Co., Inc. v. Kuhn Case Brief Summary | Law Case ExplainedBrigance v. Vail Summit Resorts Inc. Case Brief Summary | Law Case ExplainedSkagerberg v. Blandin Paper Co. Case Brief Summary | Law Case ExplainedState v. Anthony Case Brief Summary | Law Case ExplainedRichert v. Handly Case Brief Summary | Law Case ExplainedCobb v. Pacific Mutual Life Insurance Co. Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained
Quimbee |

Barnette v McNulty | Law Case Explained

SHARE TO X SHARE TO REDDIT SHARE TO FACEBOOK WALLPAPER