A. A formal testacy proceeding is litigation to determine whether a decedent left a valid will. A formal testacy proceeding may be commenced by an interested person filing a petition as described in section 14-3402, subsection A in which he requests that the court, after notice and hearing, enter an order probating a will, or a petition to set aside an informal probate of a will or to prevent informal probate of a will which is the subject of a pending application, or a petition in accordance with section 14-3402, subsection B for an order that the decedent died intestate.
B. A petition may seek formal probate of a will without regard to whether the same or a conflicting will has been informally probated. A formal testacy proceeding may involve a request for appointment of a personal representative.
C. During the pendency of a formal testacy proceeding, the registrar shall not act upon any application for informal probate of any will of the decedent or any application for informal appointment of a personal representative of the decedent.
D. Unless a petition in a formal testacy proceeding also requests confirmation of the previous informal appointment, a previously appointed personal representative, after receipt of notice of the commencement of a formal probate proceeding, must refrain from exercising his power to make any further distribution of the estate during the pendency of the formal proceeding. A petitioner who seeks the appointment of a different personal representative in a formal proceeding also may request an order restraining the acting personal representative from exercising any of the powers of his office and requesting the appointment of a special administrator. In the absence of a request or if the request is denied, the commencement of a formal proceeding has no effect on the powers and duties of a previously appointed personal representative other than those relating to distribution.
Notes of Decisions
Ellis v. Valley Nat'l Bank, 609 P.2d 1073 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1980).
· cites it 8× “It ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to grant the relief sought in the petition because appellants had not filed a formal testacy proceeding in compliance with A.R.S. § 14-3401 et seq. (see Uniform Probate Code (U.”
Marianne Waldow v. James Laporta, 246 P.3d 628 (Ariz. 2010).
· cites it 2× “In an unsupervised administration, the personal representative can distribute assets and close an estate informally and without court order.”
In Re Est. of Mcgathy, 246 P.3d 628 (Ariz. 2010).
· cites it 2× “In an unsupervised administration, the personal representative can distribute assets and close an estate informally and without court order.”
Matter of Est. of Ivester, 812 P.2d 1141 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1991).
· cites it 2× “A formal proceeding under A.R.S. § 14-3401 may be one to secure a declaratory judgment of intestacy and determination of heirs in a case where no will has been offered.”
Stewart v. Stewart, 286 P.3d 1089 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012).
“”) section 14-3401 seeking to invalidate the Will on a number of *483 grounds.”
Zimmerman v. Allen, 250 P.3d 558 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 2× “2d at 349 ; compare A.R.S. § 14-3401(A) (2005) (“A formal testacy proceeding is litigation to determine whether a decedent left a valid will.”
Stewart v. Stewart (Ariz. Ct. App. 2020).
“”) section 14-3401(A). Issue preclusion applies when (1) the issue to be litigated was actually litigated in a prior suit, (2) resolution of the issue was essential to that decision, (3) a final judgment was entered, and (4) the party against whom issue preclusion is invoked had…”
In Re Est. of Waterloo, 250 P.3d 558 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 2× “2d at 349 ; compare A.R.S. § 14-3401(A) (2005) ("A formal testacy proceeding is litigation to determine whether a decedent left a valid will.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 14-3401(A) — 4 cases
Ellis v. Valley Nat'l Bank, 609 P.2d 1073 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1980).
“It ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to grant the relief sought in the petition because appellants had not filed a formal testacy proceeding in compliance with A.R.S. § 14-3401 et seq. (see Uniform Probate Code (U.”
Zimmerman v. Allen, 250 P.3d 558 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011).
“2d at 349 ; compare A.R.S. § 14-3401(A) (2005) (“A formal testacy proceeding is litigation to determine whether a decedent left a valid will.”
Stewart v. Stewart (Ariz. Ct. App. 2020).
“”) section 14-3401(A). Issue preclusion applies when (1) the issue to be litigated was actually litigated in a prior suit, (2) resolution of the issue was essential to that decision, (3) a final judgment was entered, and (4) the party against whom issue preclusion is invoked had…”
In Re Est. of Waterloo, 250 P.3d 558 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011).
“2d at 349 ; compare A.R.S. § 14-3401(A) (2005) ("A formal testacy proceeding is litigation to determine whether a decedent left a valid will.”
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.