Ariz. Rev. Stat. » Title 14
Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 14-3951 (2026)

Effect of approval of agreements involving trusts, inalienable interests, or interests of third persons

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A compromise of any controversy as to admission to probate of any instrument offered for formal probate as the will of a decedent, the construction, validity or effect of any probated will, the rights or interests in the estate of the decedent, of any successor, or the administration of the estate, if approved in a formal proceeding in the court for that purpose, is binding on all the parties thereto including those unborn, unascertained or who could not be located. An approved compromise is binding even though it may affect a trust or an inalienable interest. A compromise does not impair the rights of creditors or of taxing authorities who are not parties to it.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 2001–2013 · leading case: In Re the Est. of Mary A. Riley, 295 P.3d 428 (Ariz. 2013).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In Re the Est. of Mary A. Riley, 295 P.3d 428 (Ariz. 2013). · cites it 11× “We hold that the statute requires all beneficiaries to execute the agreement if it affects beneficial interests in the estate and the settling parties seek court approval pursuant to A.R.S. § 14-3951. I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶ 2 Mary A.”
In re the Est. of Riley, 266 P.3d 1078 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 11× “The agreement between Barkley, Mary, and Joseph contained a term stating it would be presented to the court for approval under A.R.S. §§ 14-3951 and 14-3952, and Barkley filed a “petition for approval of compromise of controversies” pursuant to those statutes in June 2009 for…”
N. Trust Bank of Arizona, N.A. v. Goodman, 23 P.3d 108 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 4× “sections 14-3951 and 14-3952 applied and that Ward’s heirs were competent to enter into such a settlement agreement under section 14-3951. The court further stated: [Tjhere is in fact a controversy.”
In the Est. of Mary a. Riley, Aka Mary Agnes Riley, Aka Mary Agnes Reilly (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 11× “also moved the probate court to appoint John Barkley as the successor personal representative of the estate.”
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.