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: .”

Matter of Est. of Muder, 751 P.2d 986 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 8× “" Subsection (B)(2), as I have previously indicated, lists among the underlying purposes and policies: "To discover and make effective the intent of a decedent in distribution of his property.”

Est. of Shumway v. Gavette, 9 P.3d 1062 (Ariz. 2000). · cites it 2× “” A.R.S. § 14-1102(B)(2). Once the testator’s intent is known, doubts should be resolved on the side of carrying out the testator’s intent.”

Matter of Est. of Muder, 765 P.2d 997 (Ariz. 1988). · cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 14-1102(B)(2). In the instant case, there is no question as to the testator's intent.”

Matter of Est. of Stephens, 574 P.2d 67 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1978). · cites it 2× “The note following the present section, A.R.S. § 14-1102, provides: “2. [T]he Act applies to .”

Matter of Est. of Wood, 710 P.2d 476 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 3× “Arizona Revised Statutes § 14-1102 provides: (B) The underlying purposes and policies of this title are: .”

Gonzalez v. Superior Court, Etc., 570 P.2d 1077 (Ariz. 1977). · cites it 2× “Prior to the passage of the revised probate code, A.R.S. § 14-1102 et seq., there was no question that the Superior Court sitting as a probate court would have no jurisdiction to try title to land.”

In Re the Est. of Fred N. Kirkes, 295 P.3d 432 (Ariz. 2013). · cites it 2× “See also A.R.S. § 14-1102(B)(2) (noting underlying purpose of probate code to effectuate decedent’s intent).”

Est. of Winn v. Plaza Healthcare, Inc., 128 P.3d 234 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 2× “” A.R.S. § 14-1102(B)(3) (2005). In In re Estate of Wood, we determined A.”

In Re Est. of Shumway, 3 P.3d 977 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 2× “See A.R.S. § 14-1102(B)(2) (1995) (law should be liberally construed to "make effective the intent of a decedent").”

Gillett-Netting v. Barnhart, 231 F. Supp. 2d 961 (D. Ariz. 2002). · cites it 2× “In so arguing, Plaintiff relies upon A.R.S. § 14-1102(B)(2), which states that one of the purposes and policies of Arizona’s probate code is “[t]o discover and make effective the intent of a decedent in distribution of his property.”

In Re Est. of Zilles, 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: .”

In Re the Est. of ELLIOT GOLDMAN, 158 P.3d 892 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 2× “” A.R.S. § 14-1102(B)(2). As noted earlier, Elliot clearly expressed an intent in his will to prioritize the fourth article beneficiaries over the charitable beneficiaries covered in the fifth article.”

Cowley v. Kaechelle, 696 P.2d 1354 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 6× “on the power of a personal representative which may be ordered by the court must be endorsed on his letters of appointment and, unless so endorsed, is ineffective as to persons dealing in good faith with the personal representative, (emphasis added) Because administration of the…”

Evitt-Thorne v. Hiatt (In re Evitt), 429 P.3d 1146 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 2× “If, for example, a payment was not due until three years after a decedent's death, the claimant would nevertheless be required to comply with § 14-3803(A) and timely notify the decedent's personal representative of the claim even though payment was not yet due; to hold otherwise…”

In Re the Est. of Kirkes, 273 P.3d 664 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 3× “AR.S. § 14-1102(B)(2); In re Estate of Shumway, 198 Ariz.”

Lind v. Muder, 751 P.2d 986 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 6× “” Subsection (B)(2), as I have previously indicated, lists among the underlying purposes and policies: “To discover and make effective the intent of a decedent in distribution of his property.”

Hunt v. Wood, 710 P.2d 476 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 3× “Arizona Revised Statutes § 14-1102 provides: (B) The underlying purposes and policies of this title are: 3.”

Bussberg v. Walker, 420 P.3d 215 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 6× “" A.R.S. § 14-1102(A), (B)(1)-(3), (B)(5) (2018).”

Lind v. Muder, 765 P.2d 997 (Ariz. 1988). · cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 14-1102(B)(2). In the instant case, there is no question as to the testator’s intent.”

Rodriguez v. Gavette, 3 P.3d 977 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 2× “See A.R.S. § 14-1102(B)(2) (1995) (law should be liberally construed to “make effective the intent of a decedent”).”

George Winn v. Plaza Healthcare (Ariz. 2007). · cites it 6× “2d at 478; see also A.R.S. § 14-1102(5) (2005). - 12 - themselves, but rather are intended to protect the decedent’s successors and creditors from disruptions to possession of the decedent’s property.”

Chalker v. Chalker, 430 P.3d 375 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 2× “" A.R.S. § 14-1102(A), (B)(3). ¶ 20 Here, the Estate notified Petitioners of the opening for the presentation of claims on August 4, 2005, and stated in the notice that the date of expiration for the presentation of claims was December 4, 2005-a date the parties agreed on, as…”

Donovan v. Donovan (Ariz. Ct. App. 2026). · cites it 2× “” A.R.S. § 14-1102(B)(2). “[T]he intent of the [testator] is the overriding consideration, but the intent expressed in the will is controlling.”

In Re the Est. of Fred N. Kirkes (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 3× “A.R.S. § 14-1102(B)(2); In re Estate of Shumway, 198 Ariz.”

In Re Indenture of Trust Dated January 13, 1964 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 2× “3d 236, 240 (2007); A.R.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.”

Buhler v. Adkins, 607 P.2d 970 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1979). · cites it 2× “2 As a part of that revision, our legislature also enacted A.R.S. § 14-1102, which mandates that the probate code “be liberally construed and applied to promote [the code’s] underlying purposes and policies.”

— 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). “Arizona Revised Statutes § 14-1102 provides: (B) The underlying purposes and policies of this title are: .”

Hunt v. Wood, 710 P.2d 476 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985). “Arizona Revised Statutes § 14-1102 provides: (B) The underlying purposes and policies of this title are: 3.”

George Winn v. Plaza Healthcare (Ariz. 2007). “2d at 478; see also A.R.S. § 14-1102(5) (2005). - 12 - themselves, but rather are intended to protect the decedent’s successors and creditors from disruptions to possession of the decedent’s property.”

— 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). “" Subsection (B)(2), as I have previously indicated, lists among the underlying purposes and policies: "To discover and make effective the intent of a decedent in distribution of his property.”

Lind v. Muder, 751 P.2d 986 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987). “” Subsection (B)(2), as I have previously indicated, lists among the underlying purposes and policies: “To discover and make effective the intent of a decedent in distribution of his property.”

Bussberg v. Walker, 420 P.3d 215 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018). “" A.R.S. § 14-1102(A), (B)(1)-(3), (B)(5) (2018).”

Chalker v. Chalker, 430 P.3d 375 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018). “" A.R.S. § 14-1102(A), (B)(3). ¶ 20 Here, the Estate notified Petitioners of the opening for the presentation of claims on August 4, 2005, and stated in the notice that the date of expiration for the presentation of claims was December 4, 2005-a date the parties agreed on, as…”

— 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). “” A.R.S. § 14-1102(B)(2). Once the testator’s intent is known, doubts should be resolved on the side of carrying out the testator’s intent.”

Matter of Est. of Muder, 765 P.2d 997 (Ariz. 1988). “A.R.S. § 14-1102(B)(2). In the instant case, there is no question as to the testator's intent.”

In Re the Est. of Fred N. Kirkes, 295 P.3d 432 (Ariz. 2013). “See also A.R.S. § 14-1102(B)(2) (noting underlying purpose of probate code to effectuate decedent’s intent).”

In Re Est. of Shumway, 3 P.3d 977 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2000). “See A.R.S. § 14-1102(B)(2) (1995) (law should be liberally construed to "make effective the intent of a decedent").”

Gillett-Netting v. Barnhart, 231 F. Supp. 2d 961 (D. Ariz. 2002). “In so arguing, Plaintiff relies upon A.R.S. § 14-1102(B)(2), which states that one of the purposes and policies of Arizona’s probate code is “[t]o discover and make effective the intent of a decedent in distribution of his property.”

In Re Est. of Zilles, 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: .”

In Re the Est. of ELLIOT GOLDMAN, 158 P.3d 892 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007). “” A.R.S. § 14-1102(B)(2). As noted earlier, Elliot clearly expressed an intent in his will to prioritize the fourth article beneficiaries over the charitable beneficiaries covered in the fifth article.”

In Re the Est. of Kirkes, 273 P.3d 664 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012). “AR.S. § 14-1102(B)(2); In re Estate of Shumway, 198 Ariz.”

Lind v. Muder, 765 P.2d 997 (Ariz. 1988). “A.R.S. § 14-1102(B)(2). In the instant case, there is no question as to the testator’s intent.”

Rodriguez v. Gavette, 3 P.3d 977 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1999). “See A.R.S. § 14-1102(B)(2) (1995) (law should be liberally construed to “make effective the intent of a decedent”).”

Bussberg v. Walker, 420 P.3d 215 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018). “" A.R.S. § 14-1102(A), (B)(1)-(3), (B)(5) (2018).”

Donovan v. Donovan (Ariz. Ct. App. 2026). “” A.R.S. § 14-1102(B)(2). “[T]he intent of the [testator] is the overriding consideration, but the intent expressed in the will is controlling.”

In Re the Est. of Fred N. Kirkes (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012). “A.R.S. § 14-1102(B)(2); In re Estate of Shumway, 198 Ariz.”

— 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). “” A.R.S. § 14-1102(B)(3) (2005). In In re Estate of Wood, we determined A.”

Evitt-Thorne v. Hiatt (In re Evitt), 429 P.3d 1146 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018). “If, for example, a payment was not due until three years after a decedent's death, the claimant would nevertheless be required to comply with § 14-3803(A) and timely notify the decedent's personal representative of the claim even though payment was not yet due; to hold otherwise…”

Cowley v. Kaechelle, 696 P.2d 1354 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1984). “on the power of a personal representative which may be ordered by the court must be endorsed on his letters of appointment and, unless so endorsed, is ineffective as to persons dealing in good faith with the personal representative, (emphasis added) Because administration of the…”

In Re Indenture of Trust Dated January 13, 1964 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014). “3d 236, 240 (2007); A.R.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.”

— 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). “" A.R.S. § 14-1102(A), (B)(1)-(3), (B)(5) (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.