In re the Estate of Riley
228 Ariz. 382
| Ariz. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Appellants, the Riley heirs, appeal from a probate court order approving two compromises: one between Barkley (the personal representative) and siblings Joseph Riley and Mary Benge, and a separate one between Barkley and Kathryn Riley.
- The compromise with Joseph and Mary was not executed by all beneficiaries as required by A.R.S. § 14-3952(1), which renders it void.
- Barkley sought court approval under A.R.S. §§ 14-3951 and 14-3952 after negotiating the settlements; nine of thirteen beneficiaries objected.
- The probate court held evidentiary hearings and approved both settlements; the objectors moved for new trial and reconsideration, which were denied.
- The court later affirmed the Kathryn compromise due to a stipulation by the objectors, while vacating the Joseph-Mary compromise and remanding.
- The court clarifies the signatures requirement applies to all beneficiaries with beneficial interests or claims that may be affected by the compromise.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Joseph and Mary compromise violated § 14-3952(1) by lacking all signatures | Riley argues the agreement must be signed by all beneficiaries. | Barkley contends only signatures of those involved are needed. | Void; lack of universal signatures requires vacatur. |
| Whether the Kathryn compromise was valid given the stipulation and absence of all-beneficiary signatures | Objectors challenge necessity of court approval despite stipulation. | Stipulation binds the parties; court approval was not required to enforce the release. | Affirmed in part due to stipulation; valid notwithstanding objections. |
Key Cases Cited
- National Union Indem. Co. v. Bruce Bros., 44 Ariz. 454 (1934) (illegality of contract apparent on face requires voiding)
- Clark v. Tinnin, 81 Ariz. 259 (1956) (waiver and estoppel cannot validate a void contract)
- Estate of Sullivan, 724 N.W.2d 532 (Minn. Ct. App. 2006) (all beneficiaries must sign family settlement affecting estate)
- Wilmot v. Wilmot, 203 Ariz. 565 (2002) (interpretation of § 14-3952(1) requires consent of all beneficiaries)
- Estate of Ward, 200 Ariz. 113 (App. 2001) (family settlement agreements modify distribution among beneficiaries)