Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 14-1102 (2026)

Purposes; rule of construction

✓ current as of May 2026

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

14-1102. Purposes; rule of construction

A. This title shall be liberally construed and applied to promote its underlying purposes and policies.

B. The underlying purposes and policies of this title are:

1. To simplify and clarify the law concerning the affairs of decedents, missing persons, protected persons, minors and incapacitated persons.

2. To discover and make effective the intent of a decedent in distribution of his property.

3. To promote a speedy and efficient system for liquidating the estate of the decedent and making distribution to his successors.

4. To promote a speedy, efficient and inexpensive system for resolving disputes under chapter 5 of this title while ensuring that the due process and other constitutional rights of the persons subject to such proceedings are protected.

5. To provide just and appropriate remedies for parties who incur damages as the result of vexatious conduct, as defined by court rule, or other unreasonable conduct, during proceedings brought pursuant to this title, without impinging on the rights of individuals who are the subject of proceedings under chapter 5 of this title.

6. To facilitate use and enforcement of certain trusts.

7. To make uniform the law among the various jurisdictions.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 38 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1977–2026 · leading case: In Re Est. of Friedman, 177 P.3d 290 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

In Re Est. of Friedman, 177 P.3d 290 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 10× “Jo Ann argues that, therefore, when a special administrator is appointed because of unfounded accusations which the special administrator determines are motivated by greed, the probate court may formulate equitable relief pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 14-1102 and -1103 (2005). 6 She…”

Ader v. Est. of Felger, 375 P.3d 97 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 3× “” Limiting the claims to be brought in a tardy proceeding is consistent with the purpose of Arizona’s probate code— it puts the burden on a creditor to keep informed of the status of a debtor and to promptly pursue his or her claims if the debtor dies.”

Rasmussen by Mitchell v. Fleming, 741 P.2d 674 (Ariz. 1987). · cites it 4× “[20] We note, however, that A.R.S. § 14-1102 requires us to liberally construe the guardianship statutes.”

Owner-Operator Indep. Drivers Ass'n v. Pac. Fin. Ass'n, 388 P.3d 556 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 4× “First, A.R.S. § 14-1102(B)(4) explains that one of Title 14’s purposes is “to facilitate use and enforcement of certain trusts.”

Ellis v. Valley Nat'l Bank, 609 P.2d 1073 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1980). · cites it 4× “This appeal involves the procedure under the Arizona Probate Code (Code), A.R.S. §§ 14-1102 et seq. for commencing a formal testacy proceeding to set aside the informal probate of a will.”

Unum Life Ins. Co. of Am. v. Craig, 26 P.3d 510 (Ariz. 2001). · cites it 2× “26 (1998); A.R.S. § 14-1102 (2000); see also In re Estate of Johnson, 129 Ariz.”

Est. of Winn v. Plaza Healthcare, Inc., 150 P.3d 236 (Ariz. 2007). · cites it 2× “2d at 478 ; see also A.R.S. § 14-1102(5) (2005).”

Robert Schalkenbach Found. v. Lincoln Found., Inc., 91 P.3d 1019 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 2× “” A.R.S. § 14-1102(A), (B)(2) and (4). 15 Appellants also urge us to apply a common-law “special interest” analysis to determine if they are “interested persons.”

Weinstein v. Weinstein, 326 P.3d 307 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 2× “3d 236, 240 (2007); AR.S. § 14-1102(B)(3). This finality is “intended to protect the decedent’s successors and creditors from disruptions to possession of the decedent’s property.”

In Re Est. of Jung, 109 P.3d 97 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 2× “DISCUSSION ¶ 10 Marc argues the superior court erred as a matter of law: (1) in interpreting A.”

In Re Est. of Pouser, 975 P.2d 704 (Ariz. 1999). · cites it 2× “Any provision of this Will which may conflict with my said objective shall be reconciled or ignored to the end that the full marital deduction may be allowed with respect to my estate. Appellants’ trust was to be funded with the residue “remaining after the funding of the…”

Zilles v. Am. Legion, 200 P.3d 1024 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 2× “2d 427, 429 (1967); see also A.R.S. § 14-1102(B)(2) (2005) (“The underlying purposes and policies of [the Probate Code] are: .”

Show all 38 citing cases →

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 14-1102(5) — 4 cases

Est. of Winn v. Plaza Healthcare, Inc., 150 P.3d 236 (Ariz. 2007). “2d at 478 ; see also A.R.S. § 14-1102(5) (2005).”

Matter of Est. of Wood, 710 P.2d 476 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985).

Hunt v. Wood, 710 P.2d 476 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985).

George Winn v. Plaza Healthcare (Ariz. 2007).

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 14-1102(A) — 6 cases

In Re Est. of Friedman, 177 P.3d 290 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008). “Jo Ann argues that, therefore, when a special administrator is appointed because of unfounded accusations which the special administrator determines are motivated by greed, the probate court may formulate equitable relief pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 14-1102 and -1103 (2005). 6 She…”

Robert Schalkenbach Found. v. Lincoln Found., Inc., 91 P.3d 1019 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004). “” A.R.S. § 14-1102(A), (B)(2) and (4). 15 Appellants also urge us to apply a common-law “special interest” analysis to determine if they are “interested persons.”

Matter of Est. of Muder, 751 P.2d 986 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1988).

Lind v. Muder, 751 P.2d 986 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987).

Bussberg v. Walker, 420 P.3d 215 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018).

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 14-1102(B) — 2 cases

Ellis v. Valley Nat'l Bank, 609 P.2d 1073 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1980). “This appeal involves the procedure under the Arizona Probate Code (Code), A.R.S. §§ 14-1102 et seq. for commencing a formal testacy proceeding to set aside the informal probate of a will.”

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 14-1102(B)(2) — 17 cases

In Re Est. of Pouser, 975 P.2d 704 (Ariz. 1999). “Any provision of this Will which may conflict with my said objective shall be reconciled or ignored to the end that the full marital deduction may be allowed with respect to my estate. Appellants’ trust was to be funded with the residue “remaining after the funding of the…”

Zilles v. Am. Legion, 200 P.3d 1024 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008). “2d 427, 429 (1967); see also A.R.S. § 14-1102(B)(2) (2005) (“The underlying purposes and policies of [the Probate Code] are: .”

Est. of Shumway v. Gavette, 9 P.3d 1062 (Ariz. 2000).

Matter of Est. of Muder, 765 P.2d 997 (Ariz. 1988).

Matter of Est. of Muder, 751 P.2d 986 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1988).

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 14-1102(B)(3) — 7 cases

Ader v. Est. of Felger, 375 P.3d 97 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016). “” Limiting the claims to be brought in a tardy proceeding is consistent with the purpose of Arizona’s probate code— it puts the burden on a creditor to keep informed of the status of a debtor and to promptly pursue his or her claims if the debtor dies.”

Weinstein v. Weinstein, 326 P.3d 307 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014). “3d 236, 240 (2007); AR.S. § 14-1102(B)(3). This finality is “intended to protect the decedent’s successors and creditors from disruptions to possession of the decedent’s property.”

Est. of Winn v. Plaza Healthcare, Inc., 128 P.3d 234 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006).

Evitt-Thorne v. Hiatt (In re Evitt), 429 P.3d 1146 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018).

Cowley v. Kaechelle, 696 P.2d 1354 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1984).

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 14-1102(B)(4) — 1 case

Owner-Operator Indep. Drivers Ass'n v. Pac. Fin. Ass'n, 388 P.3d 556 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2017). “First, A.R.S. § 14-1102(B)(4) explains that one of Title 14’s purposes is “to facilitate use and enforcement of certain trusts.”

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 14-1102(B)(5) — 1 case

Bussberg v. Walker, 420 P.3d 215 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018).

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.