concurring in the result:
{[ 16 I concur in the result reached by the lead opinion. However, I do not subscribe to the reasoning of Gray Tool Co. v. Humble Oil & Refining Co., 186 F.2d 365 (5th Cir. 1951), relied upon for the proposition that a judge may not, as a matter of law, draw fact inferences relating to a party's "purpose or intentions" from facts presented in support of a motion for summary judgment. That would be an unnecessarily limiting rule of law in my opinion. Moreover, such a new rule is not required to resolve the case before us.
117 Rule 56 of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure binds trial courts in considering a motion for summary judgment. The court must consider all facts, and all inferences from those facts, in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. It is sufficient to review this case under our ordinary standard * of review, granting to defendant in this case the benefit of the most advantageous inferences to be drawn from the disputed doeu-ments and actions of the late Mrs. Morrison.
"[ 18 Where, as here, equally plausible contrary inferences may be drawn, neither party should have been granted summary judgment. Under the cireumstances of this case, as presented to the trial court, the inferences drawn and relied upon by the trial court *708were those most adverse to the nonmoving party, namely, that Mrs. Morrison intended to change the identity of her trustee. The inference most favorable to Ms. Sullivan would have been that Mrs. Morrison did not intend such a change. Summary judgment should not have been granted under these cireumstances for that reason alone.
1 19 This matter should proceed to a stage where a trier of fact may reach supportable findings as to Mrs. Morrison's intent. I therefore concur in the result reached by the lead opinion, but not the reasoning.
[20 Associate Chief Justice RUSSON and Justice DURRANT concur in Justice WILKINS concurring in the result opinion.