Ariz. Rev. Stat. » Title 14
Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 14-10706 (2026)

Removal of trustee

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

14-10706. Removal of trustee

A. The settlor, a cotrustee or a beneficiary may request the court to remove a trustee or a trustee may be removed by the court on its own initiative.

B. The court may remove a trustee if:

1. The trustee has committed a material breach of trust.

2. Lack of cooperation among cotrustees substantially impairs the administration of the trust.

3. Because of unfitness, unwillingness or persistent failure of the trustee to administer the trust for the benefit of the beneficiaries, the court determines that removal of the trustee best serves the interests of the beneficiaries.

4. There has been a substantial change of circumstances or removal is requested by all of the qualified beneficiaries, the court finds that removal of the trustee best serves the interests of all of the beneficiaries and is not inconsistent with a material purpose of the trust and a suitable cotrustee or successor trustee is available.

C. Pending a final decision on a request to remove a trustee, or in lieu of or in addition to removing a trustee, the court may order appropriate relief under section 14-11001, subsection B as may be necessary to protect the trust property or the interests of the beneficiaries.

D. On petition of a beneficiary who is also a settlor of a trust, including a beneficiary for whom a guardian or conservator has been appointed, the court shall substitute a trustee and appoint a successor if the substitution is in the best interest of the beneficiary.  The trustee and the trustee's attorney may be compensated from the trust for defending against a petition for substitution only for the amount ordered by the court and on petition by the trustee or the trustee's attorney.  When substituting a trustee and appointing a successor, the court may appoint an individual nominated by the beneficiary if the beneficiary has, in the opinion of the court, sufficient mental capacity to make an intelligent choice.

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2018–2026 · leading case: Schultz v. Schultz (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Schultz v. Schultz (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 6× “See A.R.S. § 14-10706(A)-(B); Restatement (Third) of Trusts § 37 cmt.”
Champagne v. Bozer (Ariz. Ct. App. 2026). · cites it 6× “Bozer has not shown that the court abused its discretion in removing him as a co-trustee under A.R.S. § 14-10706(A)(3). B. The Arizona Rules of Probate Procedure Did Not Require an Evidentiary Hearing.”
Goodrich v. Haeussler (Ariz. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 2× “, A.R.S. § 14-10706 (noting that "a beneficiary may request the court to remove a trustee"); In re Indenture of Tr.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 14-10706(A) — 1 case
Schultz v. Schultz (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018). “See A.R.S. § 14-10706(A)-(B); Restatement (Third) of Trusts § 37 cmt.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 14-10706(A)(3) — 1 case
Champagne v. Bozer (Ariz. Ct. App. 2026). “Bozer has not shown that the court abused its discretion in removing him as a co-trustee under A.R.S. § 14-10706(A)(3). B. The Arizona Rules of Probate Procedure Did Not Require an Evidentiary Hearing.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 14-10706(B) — 1 case
Champagne v. Bozer (Ariz. Ct. App. 2026). “Bozer has not shown that the court abused its discretion in removing him as a co-trustee under A.R.S. § 14-10706(A)(3). B. The Arizona Rules of Probate Procedure Did Not Require an Evidentiary Hearing.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 14-10706(B)(3) — 2 cases
Schultz v. Schultz (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018). “See A.R.S. § 14-10706(A)-(B); Restatement (Third) of Trusts § 37 cmt.”
Champagne v. Bozer (Ariz. Ct. App. 2026). “Bozer has not shown that the court abused its discretion in removing him as a co-trustee under A.R.S. § 14-10706(A)(3). B. The Arizona Rules of Probate Procedure Did Not Require an Evidentiary Hearing.”
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.