A. A personal representative or any interested person may petition for an order of complete settlement of the estate. The personal representative may petition at any time, and any other interested person may petition after one year from the appointment of the original personal representative except that no petition under this section may be entertained until the time for presenting claims which arose prior to the death of the decedent has expired. The petition may request the court to determine testacy, if not previously determined, to consider the final account or compel or approve an accounting and distribution, to construe any will or determine heirs and adjudicate the final settlement and distribution of the estate. Notice must be given to all interested persons, and a copy of the final account must also be sent to the distributees whose interests are affected thereby. After hearing the court may enter an order or orders, on appropriate conditions, determining the persons entitled to distribution of the estate, and, as circumstances require, approving settlement and directing, approving or decreeing distribution of the estate and discharging the personal representative from further claim or demand of any interested person.
B. If one or more heirs or devisees were omitted as parties in, or were not given notice of, a previous formal testacy proceeding, the court, on proper petition for an order of complete settlement of the estate under this section, and after notice to the omitted or unnotified persons and other interested parties determined to be interested on the assumption that the previous order concerning testacy is conclusive as to those given notice of the earlier proceeding, may determine testacy as it affects the omitted persons and confirm or alter the previous order of testacy as it affects all interested persons as appropriate in the light of the new proofs. In the absence of objection by an omitted or unnotified person, evidence received in the original testacy proceeding shall constitute prima facie proof of due execution of any will previously admitted to probate, or of the fact that the decedent left no valid will if the prior proceedings determined this fact.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
5
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1983–2026 · leading case:
Tovrea v. Nolan, 875 P.2d 144 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1993).
Tovrea v. Nolan, 875 P.2d 144 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1993).
· cites it 2× “Appellees contend that because Tovrea’s will did not directly devise any assets to appellants and because they had already received “all to which they were entitled,” by way of their individual trust distributions, appellants were neither “distributees” nor were their "interests…”
In Re the Est. of ELLIOT GOLDMAN, 158 P.3d 892 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 2× “Rather, a PR faced with such a situation could “petition for an order of complete settlement of the estate” and request the probate court to “consider the final account” and approve the PR’s “accounting and distribution.”
Meyer v. Mikolay, 987 P.2d 822 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1999).
· cites it 2× “§ 14-3803 (all claims against an estate that arose before death must be presented within four months after the date of first publication of notice to creditors); A.R.S § 14-3931 (no petition for an order of complete settlement may be entertained until the time for presenting…”
Claxton v. Brooks (Ariz. Ct. App. 2026).
“(“We do not believe the legislature intended to exempt from the six-month limitation period the mere failure or refusal to provide the accounting required under § 14-3931, absent some form of fraud or purposeful misrepresentation, which appellants failed to demonstrate.”
Horton v. Shea, 669 P.2d 1338 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1983).
· cites it 2× “) A proceeding to determine heirs was filed pursuant to A.R.S. § 14-3931. Appellants contested the petition, alleging that the term “legal heirs” in the residuary clause should be construed to include them.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 14-3931(A) — 2 cases
Tovrea v. Nolan, 875 P.2d 144 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1993).
“Appellees contend that because Tovrea’s will did not directly devise any assets to appellants and because they had already received “all to which they were entitled,” by way of their individual trust distributions, appellants were neither “distributees” nor were their "interests…”
In Re the Est. of ELLIOT GOLDMAN, 158 P.3d 892 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007).
“Rather, a PR faced with such a situation could “petition for an order of complete settlement of the estate” and request the probate court to “consider the final account” and approve the PR’s “accounting and distribution.”
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.