Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 14-10106 (2026)

Common law of trusts; principles of equity

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

14-10106. Common law of trusts; principles of equity

A. The common law of trusts and principles of equity supplement this chapter, except to the extent modified by this chapter or another statute of this state.

B. The court shall look to the restatement (second) of trusts for interpretation of the common law and not to subsequent restatements of trusts to determine:

1. The rights and powers of creditors of beneficiaries.

2. The duties of trustees to distribute to those to whom a beneficiary owes any duties.

3. Whether public policy may affect enforceability and effectiveness of the terms of the trust.

4. And effectuate the settlor's intent.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 10 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 2004–2023 · leading case: Owner-Operator Indep. Drivers Ass'n v. Pac. Fin. Ass'n, 388 P.3d 556 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2017).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Owner-Operator Indep. Drivers Ass'n v. Pac. Fin. Ass'n, 388 P.3d 556 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 7× “Finally, A.R.S. § 14-10106 is essentially identical to § 106 of the UTC with the latter providing that “[t]he common law of trusts and principles of equity supplement this *414 [Code], except to the extent modified by this [Code] or another statute of this State,” UTC § 106…”

Robert Schalkenbach Found. v. Lincoln Found., Inc., 91 P.3d 1019 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 2× “” A.R.S. § 14-10106. We may look to the RUTC to analyze how the purposed legislation sheds light on the purpose of the laws in place at the time the judgments were rendered.”

Weinstein v. Weinstein, 326 P.3d 307 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 2× “” Because issues related to spendthrift trusts necessarily implicate the intent of the trustor, we rely on the Restatement (Second) of Trusts, and not the more recent Restatement (Third) of Trusts.”

Hammerman v. N. Trust Co., 329 P.3d 1055 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 2× “Under A.R.S. § 14-10106(B), we are compelled to look only to the Restatement (Second) of Trusts, and not subsequent restatements of trusts, *159 to determine (1) "[t]he rights and powers of creditors of beneficiaries”; (2) "[t]he duties of trustees to distribute to those to whom…”

In Re Esther Caplan Trust, 265 P.3d 364 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 5× “[4] The legislature has decreed that A.R.S. § 14-10106 "applies to all judicial proceedings concerning trusts commenced on or after January 1, 2009," and that "[a]n act done before January 1, 2009[,] is not affected by this act.”

Bistrow v. Sova, 265 P.3d 364 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 5× “The legislature has decreed that A.R.S. § 14-10106 "applies to all judicial proceedings concerning trusts commenced on or after January 1, 2009,” and that ”[a]n act done before January 1, 2009[,] is not affected by this act.”

Thompson v. Manten (Ariz. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 2× “”); see also A.R.S. § 14-10106(B) (directing courts to look to the second restatement of trusts for principles about the settlor’s intent).”

Meyer v. 23526 Florence (Ariz. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 2× “See A.R.S. § 14-10106(A); McLeod v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Tr.”

McCombs v. Joyce C. Miller Trust (Ariz. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 2× “See A.R.S. § 14-10106(A); McLeod v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Tr.”

In Re Indenture of Trust Dated January 13, 1964 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 2× “spendthrift trusts necessarily implicate the intent of the trustor, we rely on the Restatement (Second) of Trusts, and not the more recent Restatement (Third) of Trusts.”

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 14-10106(A) — 3 cases

Owner-Operator Indep. Drivers Ass'n v. Pac. Fin. Ass'n, 388 P.3d 556 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2017). “Finally, A.R.S. § 14-10106 is essentially identical to § 106 of the UTC with the latter providing that “[t]he common law of trusts and principles of equity supplement this *414 [Code], except to the extent modified by this [Code] or another statute of this State,” UTC § 106…”

Meyer v. 23526 Florence (Ariz. Ct. App. 2023). “See A.R.S. § 14-10106(A); McLeod v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Tr.”

McCombs v. Joyce C. Miller Trust (Ariz. Ct. App. 2023). “See A.R.S. § 14-10106(A); McLeod v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Tr.”

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 14-10106(B) — 4 cases

Hammerman v. N. Trust Co., 329 P.3d 1055 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014). “Under A.R.S. § 14-10106(B), we are compelled to look only to the Restatement (Second) of Trusts, and not subsequent restatements of trusts, *159 to determine (1) "[t]he rights and powers of creditors of beneficiaries”; (2) "[t]he duties of trustees to distribute to those to whom…”

In Re Esther Caplan Trust, 265 P.3d 364 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011). “[4] The legislature has decreed that A.R.S. § 14-10106 "applies to all judicial proceedings concerning trusts commenced on or after January 1, 2009," and that "[a]n act done before January 1, 2009[,] is not affected by this act.”

Bistrow v. Sova, 265 P.3d 364 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011). “The legislature has decreed that A.R.S. § 14-10106 "applies to all judicial proceedings concerning trusts commenced on or after January 1, 2009,” and that ”[a]n act done before January 1, 2009[,] is not affected by this act.”

Thompson v. Manten (Ariz. Ct. App. 2023). “”); see also A.R.S. § 14-10106(B) (directing courts to look to the second restatement of trusts for principles about the settlor’s intent).”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.