A. Except as otherwise provided by a decedent's will, every personal representative has a right to, and shall take possession or control of, the decedent's property, except that any real property or tangible personal property may be left with or surrendered to the person presumptively entitled to it unless or until, in the judgment of the personal representative, possession of the property by the personal representative will be necessary for purposes of administration. The request by a personal representative for delivery of any property possessed by an heir or devisee is conclusive evidence, in any action against the heir or devisee for possession of the property, that the possession of the property by the personal representative is necessary for purposes of administration. The personal representative shall pay taxes on, and take all steps reasonably necessary for the management, protection and preservation of, the estate in the personal representative's possession. The personal representative may maintain an action to recover possession of property or to determine its title.
B. If the personal representative or other person interested in the estate of a decedent complains to the court, on oath, that a person is suspected of having concealed, embezzled, conveyed or disposed of any property of a decedent, or possesses or has knowledge of deeds, bonds, contracts or other writings which contain evidence of or tend to disclose the right, interest or claim of a decedent to any property, or the will of a decedent, the court may cite that person to appear before the court and may examine that person on oath on the complaint. If that person is not in the county where letters have been issued, the person may be cited and examined before the court in the county where the person is found or the court issuing the citation. If the person appears and the court determines that the claim is unfounded, the court shall allow that person necessary expenses out of the estate.
C. If the person cited as provided by subsection B refuses to appear and submit to an examination, or to answer questions relevant to the complaint, the court may commit that person to jail until the person submits to the order of the court or is discharged according to law.
D. If on examination or from other evidence adduced at the hearing it appears that a person has concealed, embezzled, conveyed or disposed of any property of a decedent, or possesses or has knowledge of deeds, bonds, contracts or other writings tending to disclose the right, interest or claim of a decedent to any property, or the will of a decedent, the court may order that person to turn over the documents or disclose knowledge to the personal representative and may commit the person cited to jail until the order is complied with or the person is discharged according to law. The examination shall be reduced to writing and filed in court. The order for the disclosure made on this examination is prima facie evidence of the right of the personal representative to the property in an action brought for recovery of that property, and a judgment shall be for double the value of the property, or for return of the property and damages in addition to the property equal to the value of the property. The court may also award reasonable attorney fees and costs.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
12
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1988–2024 · leading case:
In Re Est. of Newman, 196 P.3d 863 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008).
In Re Est. of Newman, 196 P.3d 863 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 32× “The Merits ¶ 12 Max argues that the trial court misinterpreted two statutes (A.R.S. §§ 14-3709, 46-456), erred by refusing to appoint an independent trustee and representative, and made clearly erroneous findings of fact.”
Est. of Winn v. Plaza Healthcare, Inc., 128 P.3d 234 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 14× “It specifically provides that the late-appointed personal representative may only possess estate assets to “confirm title thereto in the rightful successors to the estate.”
Est. of Winn v. Plaza Healthcare, Inc., 150 P.3d 236 (Ariz. 2007).
· cites it 3× “Arizona Revised Statutes § 14-3108(4) provides that a personal representative who is appointed to represent an estate more than two years after the decedent’s death “has no right to possess estate assets as provided in § 14-3709 beyond that necessary to confirm title thereto in…”
Ader v. Est. of Felger, 375 P.3d 97 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016).
“] § 14-3709 beyond that necessary to confirm title thereto in the rightful successors to the estate.”
Jorgenson v. Jorgenson, 766 P.2d 87 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1988).
· cites it 10× “The complaint prayed for the return of the money and, pursuant to A.R.S. § 14-3709, for double the amount wrongfully appropriated, for costs, and for other *215 appropriate relief.”
Kimball v. Perkins (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 19× “¶60 Memi next argues the superior court erred by denying her request for attorney’s fees under A.R.S. § 14-3709. This court has noted that the statute creates: a process whereby a personal representative may commence an “action to recover possession of property,” authorized by…”
McCollum v. Potter (Ariz. Ct. App. 2024).
· cites it 14× “§ 46-456, and return of property and documents under A.R.S. § 14-3709. Daughter then withdrew her objection to McCollum's request to probate Decedent's will and withdrew her petition for formal probate and appointment as personal representative.”
Cunningham v. World Sav. Bank, FSB, 660 F. Supp. 2d 1078 (D. Ariz. 2009).
· cites it 15× “Milhausen in violation of A.R.S. § 14-3709.” 23 The amended complaint further requests the court to 1) order World Savings to pay “a sum equal to the full amount of the CD Accounts wrongfully disbursed to Anne Heinkel, plus prejudgment and post judgment interest according to…”
Snyder v. Tucson Police Pub. Saf. Ret. Sys., 32 P.3d 420 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 2× “Thus, such property becomes part of the decedent's estate by operation of law and is not a debt owed to the estate. Accordingly, Caren's estate is not a creditor of the pension plan.”
George Winn v. Plaza Healthcare (Ariz. 2007).
· cites it 4× “Arizona Revised Statutes § 14-3108(4) provides that a personal representative who is appointed to represent an estate more than two years after the decedent’s death “has no right to possess estate assets as provided in § 14-3709 beyond that necessary to confirm title thereto in…”
Carson v. McPf (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 2× “); A.R.S. § 14-3709(A) (personal representative must take possession of, pay taxes on, manage, protect, and preserve decedent’s property); A.”
Ajemian v. Yahoo!, Inc. (Mass. 2017).
“78, § 1 (every personal representative has right to take possession or control of decedent's property); Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 14-3709 , inserted by 1973 Ariz.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 14-3709(A) — 7 cases
Est. of Winn v. Plaza Healthcare, Inc., 150 P.3d 236 (Ariz. 2007).
“Arizona Revised Statutes § 14-3108(4) provides that a personal representative who is appointed to represent an estate more than two years after the decedent’s death “has no right to possess estate assets as provided in § 14-3709 beyond that necessary to confirm title thereto in…”
In Re Est. of Newman, 196 P.3d 863 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008).
“The Merits ¶ 12 Max argues that the trial court misinterpreted two statutes (A.R.S. §§ 14-3709, 46-456), erred by refusing to appoint an independent trustee and representative, and made clearly erroneous findings of fact.”
Est. of Winn v. Plaza Healthcare, Inc., 128 P.3d 234 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006).
“It specifically provides that the late-appointed personal representative may only possess estate assets to “confirm title thereto in the rightful successors to the estate.”
Snyder v. Tucson Police Pub. Saf. Ret. Sys., 32 P.3d 420 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001).
“Thus, such property becomes part of the decedent's estate by operation of law and is not a debt owed to the estate. Accordingly, Caren's estate is not a creditor of the pension plan.”
Kimball v. Perkins (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016).
“¶60 Memi next argues the superior court erred by denying her request for attorney’s fees under A.R.S. § 14-3709. This court has noted that the statute creates: a process whereby a personal representative may commence an “action to recover possession of property,” authorized by…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 14-3709(B) — 2 cases
In Re Est. of Newman, 196 P.3d 863 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008).
“The Merits ¶ 12 Max argues that the trial court misinterpreted two statutes (A.R.S. §§ 14-3709, 46-456), erred by refusing to appoint an independent trustee and representative, and made clearly erroneous findings of fact.”
Kimball v. Perkins (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016).
“¶60 Memi next argues the superior court erred by denying her request for attorney’s fees under A.R.S. § 14-3709. This court has noted that the statute creates: a process whereby a personal representative may commence an “action to recover possession of property,” authorized by…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 14-3709(D) — 4 cases
In Re Est. of Newman, 196 P.3d 863 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008).
“The Merits ¶ 12 Max argues that the trial court misinterpreted two statutes (A.R.S. §§ 14-3709, 46-456), erred by refusing to appoint an independent trustee and representative, and made clearly erroneous findings of fact.”
Kimball v. Perkins (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016).
“¶60 Memi next argues the superior court erred by denying her request for attorney’s fees under A.R.S. § 14-3709. This court has noted that the statute creates: a process whereby a personal representative may commence an “action to recover possession of property,” authorized by…”
McCollum v. Potter (Ariz. Ct. App. 2024).
“§ 46-456, and return of property and documents under A.R.S. § 14-3709. Daughter then withdrew her objection to McCollum's request to probate Decedent's will and withdrew her petition for formal probate and appointment as personal representative.”
Cunningham v. World Sav. Bank, FSB, 660 F. Supp. 2d 1078 (D. Ariz. 2009).
“Milhausen in violation of A.R.S. § 14-3709.” 23 The amended complaint further requests the court to 1) order World Savings to pay “a sum equal to the full amount of the CD Accounts wrongfully disbursed to Anne Heinkel, plus prejudgment and post judgment interest according to…”
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.