no-contest clause in Arizona

2024See Shumway, 198 Ariz. at 328, ¶ 14 . ¶11 Lewison contends that, even if his petition triggered the no- contest clause, he had probable cause to bring his petition because: (1) it was necessary someone open probate to appoint a personal representative; (2) Arizona was the proper venue to initiate probate proceedings; (3) Lewison believed he was the primary beneficiary under Yvette’s 2019 will; (4) the superior court had discretion to appoint Lewison as personal representative; and (5) Lewison filed his petition based on the advice of counsel. ¶12 The superior court found Lewison lacked probabl

2023Because the Trust’s no-contest clause operates as a forfeiture, which the law disfavors, see id. at 328, ¶ 14 , we will find a violation “only when the acts of a party come strictly within its express terms.” Claudia G.

2021A.R.S. § 14-10113; see also In re Shaheen Trust, 236 Ariz. 498, 500, ¶ 6 (App. 2015).

2018See In re Shaheen Trust, 236 Ariz. 498, 501, ¶ 9 (App. 2015) (citing Restatement (Second) of Property: Donative Transfers ("Restatement") § 9.1 (1983)).

2025Cullen v. Auto-Owners Ins., Co., 218 Ariz. 417, 419, ¶ 7 (2008).“[M]ere conclusory statements are insufficient to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” Id. ¶10 Wiley alleged Amanda violated the trust’s no-contest clause when she filed her petition, thereby terminating her beneficiary status.

2025Cullen v. Auto-Owners Ins., Co., 218 Ariz. 417, 419, ¶ 7 (2008).“[M]ere conclusory statements are insufficient to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” Id. ¶10 Wiley alleged Amanda violated the trust’s no-contest clause when she filed her petition, thereby terminating her beneficiary status.

2025See In re Estate of Zilles, 219 Ariz. 527, 530, ¶ 8 (App. 2008) (noting the goal in interpreting a trust provision is to “ascertain the intent of the trustor” by “consider[ing] the text of the trust as a whole”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). ¶11 The Trust’s no-contest clause states: If any person in any manner, directly or indirectly . . . , contests or attacks this instrument or any of its provisions or seeks to impair or invalidate any part or provision of the Trustor’s estate plan, any share or interest given to that contesting person under this trust is revoked and shall

2025See In re Estate of Zilles, 219 Ariz. 527, 530, ¶ 8 (App. 2008) (noting the goal in interpreting a trust provision is to “ascertain the intent of the trustor” by “consider[ing] the text of the trust as a whole”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). ¶11 The Trust’s no-contest clause states: If any person in any manner, directly or indirectly . . . , contests or attacks this instrument or any of its provisions or seeks to impair or invalidate any part or provision of the Trustor’s estate plan, any share or interest given to that contesting person under this trust is revoked and shall

2023In re Estate of Pouser, 193 Ariz. 574, 576, ¶ 2 (1999).

2021Connell Living Trust, 426 P.3d 599, 602 (Nev. 2018) (recognizing “there may be instances wherein a no- contest clause applies to trustee-beneficiaries who abuse their trustee status ‘as a means of presenting personal views’ as a beneficiary”) (quoting Restatement (Third) of Property: Wills & Donative Transfers § 8.5 cmt. f (2003)); Johnson v. Greenelsh, 217 P.3d 1194, 1202 (Cal. 2009) (“[A] trustee who is also a beneficiary might violate a no contest clause by taking action to reverse a settlor’s exercise of rights conferred by the trust, if the action would effectively nullify or alter the es

2021Connell Living Trust, 426 P.3d 599, 602 (Nev. 2018) (recognizing “there may be instances wherein a no- contest clause applies to trustee-beneficiaries who abuse their trustee status ‘as a means of presenting personal views’ as a beneficiary”) (quoting Restatement (Third) of Property: Wills & Donative Transfers § 8.5 cmt. f (2003)); Johnson v. Greenelsh, 217 P.3d 1194, 1202 (Cal. 2009) (“[A] trustee who is also a beneficiary might violate a no contest clause by taking action to reverse a settlor’s exercise of rights conferred by the trust, if the action would effectively nullify or alter the es

2021Heltzel v. Mecham Pontiac, 152 Ariz. 58, 61 (1986).