14-2712. Burdens relating to validity of governing instruments
A. A proponent of a governing instrument has the burden of establishing prima facie proof of due execution in all cases.
B. It is a rebuttable presumption that a person who executes a governing instrument is presumed to have capacity to execute the governing instrument and to have done so free from undue influence and duress.
C. If the validity of a governing instrument is challenged on the grounds of revocation by a later governing instrument, the validity of the later governing instrument must be determined first.
D. Except as prescribed pursuant to subsections E and F of this section, a party that challenges the validity of a governing instrument has the burden of establishing the invalidity of that governing instrument by a preponderance of the evidence.
E. A governing instrument is presumed to be the product of undue influence if either:
1. A person who had a confidential relationship to the creator of the governing instrument was active in procuring its creation and execution and is a principal beneficiary of the governing instrument.
2. The preparer of the governing instrument or the preparer's spouse or parents or the issue of the preparer's spouse or parents is a principal beneficiary of the governing instrument. This paragraph does not apply if the governing instrument was prepared for a person who is a grandparent of the preparer, the issue of a grandparent of the preparer or the respective spouses or former spouses of persons related to the preparer.
F. The beneficiary of the governing instrument may overcome a presumption of undue influence by a preponderance of the evidence.
G. For the purposes of this section, determining if a person is a principal beneficiary of a governing instrument or the preparer of a governing instrument is a question of fact to be determined by the totality of the circumstances.
H. This section does not apply to the following:
1. Proceedings to determine the validity of a durable power of attorney pursuant to section 14-5506, subsection B.
2. Proceedings to determine ownership of multiple party accounts pursuant to section 14-6211.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
6
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 2014–2023 · leading case:
Koma v. Walter (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016).
Koma v. Walter (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 18× ““It is a rebuttable presumption that a person who executes a governing instrument is presumed to have capacity to execute the governing instrument and to have done so free from undue influence and duress.”
Rosenberg v. Sanders, 539 P.3d 120 (Ariz. 2023).
· cites it 7× “See A.R.S. § 14-2712(B) (“It is a rebuttable presumption that a person who executes a governing instrument is presumed to have capacity to execute the governing instrument and to have done so free from undue influence and duress.”
Larmer v. Larmer (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 5× “Undue Influence ¶9 James argues the superior court misapplied the law because it failed to appreciate that the presumption of undue influence set out in Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.”
Bates v. Bates (Ariz. Ct. App. 2021).
· cites it 5× “(See A.R.S. 14-2712(E) and McCauley at 11, 34.”
Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. v. Huizenga (D. Ariz. 2020).
· cites it 4× “” A.R.S. § 14-2712(B). 15 A party challenging the capacity of the person executing a governing instrument has 16 the burden to show by a preponderance of the evidence, A.”
Williams v. Cole (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 3× “See A.R.S. § 14-2712(E)(1) (West 2010), 5 see also Mullin v.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 14-2712(B) — 3 cases
Koma v. Walter (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016).
““It is a rebuttable presumption that a person who executes a governing instrument is presumed to have capacity to execute the governing instrument and to have done so free from undue influence and duress.”
Rosenberg v. Sanders, 539 P.3d 120 (Ariz. 2023).
“See A.R.S. § 14-2712(B) (“It is a rebuttable presumption that a person who executes a governing instrument is presumed to have capacity to execute the governing instrument and to have done so free from undue influence and duress.”
Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. v. Huizenga (D. Ariz. 2020).
“” A.R.S. § 14-2712(B). 15 A party challenging the capacity of the person executing a governing instrument has 16 the burden to show by a preponderance of the evidence, A.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 14-2712(D) — 3 cases
Koma v. Walter (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016).
““It is a rebuttable presumption that a person who executes a governing instrument is presumed to have capacity to execute the governing instrument and to have done so free from undue influence and duress.”
Rosenberg v. Sanders, 539 P.3d 120 (Ariz. 2023).
“See A.R.S. § 14-2712(B) (“It is a rebuttable presumption that a person who executes a governing instrument is presumed to have capacity to execute the governing instrument and to have done so free from undue influence and duress.”
Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. v. Huizenga (D. Ariz. 2020).
“” A.R.S. § 14-2712(B). 15 A party challenging the capacity of the person executing a governing instrument has 16 the burden to show by a preponderance of the evidence, A.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 14-2712(E) — 2 cases
Koma v. Walter (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016).
““It is a rebuttable presumption that a person who executes a governing instrument is presumed to have capacity to execute the governing instrument and to have done so free from undue influence and duress.”
Bates v. Bates (Ariz. Ct. App. 2021).
“(See A.R.S. 14-2712(E) and McCauley at 11, 34.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 14-2712(E)(1) — 5 cases
Koma v. Walter (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016).
““It is a rebuttable presumption that a person who executes a governing instrument is presumed to have capacity to execute the governing instrument and to have done so free from undue influence and duress.”
Larmer v. Larmer (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016).
“Undue Influence ¶9 James argues the superior court misapplied the law because it failed to appreciate that the presumption of undue influence set out in Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.”
Rosenberg v. Sanders, 539 P.3d 120 (Ariz. 2023).
“See A.R.S. § 14-2712(B) (“It is a rebuttable presumption that a person who executes a governing instrument is presumed to have capacity to execute the governing instrument and to have done so free from undue influence and duress.”
Bates v. Bates (Ariz. Ct. App. 2021).
“(See A.R.S. 14-2712(E) and McCauley at 11, 34.”
Williams v. Cole (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014).
“See A.R.S. § 14-2712(E)(1) (West 2010), 5 see also Mullin v.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 14-2712(E)(2) — 1 case
Bates v. Bates (Ariz. Ct. App. 2021).
“(See A.R.S. 14-2712(E) and McCauley at 11, 34.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 14-2712(F) — 1 case
Larmer v. Larmer (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016).
“Undue Influence ¶9 James argues the superior court misapplied the law because it failed to appreciate that the presumption of undue influence set out in Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 14-2712(G) — 1 case
Koma v. Walter (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016).
““It is a rebuttable presumption that a person who executes a governing instrument is presumed to have capacity to execute the governing instrument and to have done so free from undue influence and duress.”
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.