Whether the Colorado Court of Appeals committed reversible error by applying division-of-marital-property law to a testamentary-trust case

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED Based upon “information, belief, and personal experience,” Petitioner (respectfully) submits the following: I. In NC DEPT. OF REV v. KIM RICE KAESTNER 1992 TRUST, 139 S. Ct. 2213 (2019), this Court held the following (verbatim, with emphasis added): In its simplest form, a trust is created when one person (a "settlor” or "grantor") transfers property to a third party (a "trustee") to administer for the benefit of another (a "beneficiary"). A. Hess, G. Bogert, & G. Bogert, Law of Trusts and Trustees § 1, pp. 8-10 (8d ed. 2007). As traditionally understood, the arrangement that results is not a "distinct legal entity, but a ‘fiduciary relationship' between multiple people." Americold Realty Trust v. Conagra Foods, Inc., 577 U. S. __,__, 186 S.Ct. 1012, 1016, 194 L.Ed.2d 71 (2016). The trust comprises the separate interests of the beneficiary, who has | an "equitable interest" in the trust property, and the trustee, } who has a "legal interest" in that property. Greenough v. Tax Assessors of Newport, 331 U.S. 486, 494, 67 S.Ct. 1400, 91 L.Ed. 1621 (1947). In some contexts, however, trusts can be treated as if the trust itself has "a separate existence" from its constituent parts. Id., at 493, 67 S.Ct. 1400.4 Id. at 2218. (Source, as of February 22, 2023: 127057326984 it] II. Question 1: Since In re Marriage of Guinn, 93 P.3d 568 (Colo. App. 2004) was/is (strictly) a “division of marital property” case (governed by “Title 14. Domestic Matters (§§ 14-1101 to 14-15-119), Colorado Revised Statutes (C.R.S.) (2022 )”) -and this case is a “testamentary trust” case (governed by “Title 15. Probate, Trusts, and Fiduciaries ((§§ 15-1-101 — 15-23-122), C.R.S. (2022)”) -did the Colorado Court of Appeals commit “reversible error” when it applied “division of marital property” law (under Title 14, C.R.S. (2022)) to this case? Question 2: Based upon the holdings in NC DEPT. OF REV v. KIM RICE KAESTNER 1992 TRUST [KAESTNER] case, did the Colorado Court of Appeals commit “reversible error’ when it applied “division of marital property” law (under Title 14, C.R.S. (2022)) to this case and ruled that “...Cole hasn’t established any constitutional deprivation. He doesn’t have a property interest in the undistributed funds from the trust”? Question 3: Based upon the holdings in KAESTNER, what “constitutional rights” do “trust beneficiaries” have in their “equitable interests” in (inherited) “monies” — from (“probated”) “Last Wills and Testaments” — which are held in “testamentary trusts” for the “benefit” of “trust beneficiaries”? ti} Question 4: If the Colorado Court of Appeals did not commit “reversible error” in this case, do “trust beneficiaries” have (“legal and/or “equitable”) “standing” to “protect” their “equitable interests” in (inherited) “monies” — from (“probated”) “Last Wills and Testaments” — which are held in “testamentary trusts” for their “benefit(s)” as “trust beneficiaries’? , | : iv