Lampe v. Lampe
1 CA-CV 20-0620
| Ariz. Ct. App. | Sep 21, 2021Background:
- Joseph and Shawn Lampe created the JSL Trust in 2016; it was revocable during Joseph’s life and became irrevocable at his death on January 25, 2018.
- Joseph’s adult sons (Scott, Mark, Craig) were qualified beneficiaries; Shawn served as trustee and personal representative.
- Plaintiffs (Mark and Craig) received a copy of the Trust and Will by attorney letter dated October 17, 2018 (≈9 months after death) and allege repeated, unsuccessful requests for additional trust information through 2019.
- Plaintiffs retained counsel in July 2019, made a formal information demand in August 2019, then petitioned to probate the Will and contest the Trust more than one year after Joseph’s death.
- Superior court granted summary judgment for Shawn: (1) the one-year limitations period in A.R.S. § 14-10604(A)(1) barred Plaintiffs’ trust challenge and awarded Shawn attorneys’ fees; (2) enforced the Trust’s no-contest clause and removed Plaintiffs as beneficiaries. Appeals were consolidated.
- Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment on the statute-of-limitations and the fee award, but vacated and remanded the no-contest clause ruling because factual disputes could support probable cause.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of A.R.S. § 14-10604(A) to contest the Trust | §14-10604 shouldn’t apply because the Trust became irrevocable at death (Sibley analogue) | Trust was revocable until settlor’s death; §14-10604 applies and one-year deadline governs | Affirmed: §14-10604 applies; Plaintiffs’ petition filed after one-year was untimely |
| Exceptions to the one-year limit (notice, statutory reporting, arbitrariness) | One-year is arbitrary vs. U.T.C.; trustee’s failure to timely report or provide full information should toll or invalidate deadline | Statute’s plain text sets one-year (or four months if notice); trustee complied with notice here; statutory scheme allows modification of some notice terms by trust | Rejected Plaintiffs’ exceptions; the statute is controlling and no additional notice requirement was implied |
| Equitable estoppel / probable cause to contest (no-contest clause) | Shawn’s delayed notice and alleged withholding of information induced reliance and may establish probable cause to challenge statute and trust | Claim was time-barred; counsel warned Plaintiffs; lack of probable cause because filing was untimely | Vacated & remanded: genuine factual disputes about notice, communications, and reliance preclude summary judgment on whether Plaintiffs had probable cause to invoke an exception to the no-contest clause |
| Attorneys’ fees awarded to trustee under trust/probate statutes | Plaintiffs: award excessive (challenge hours/costs) | Shawn: fees authorized; reply required extra work; award appropriate | Affirmed fee award as within discretion; appellate fee requests denied to both parties |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Estate of Sibley, 246 Ariz. 498 (App. 2018) (distinguishes challenges to a revocable trust versus post-death amendments to an irrevocable trust)
- In re Estate of Shumway, 198 Ariz. 323 (2000) (defines probable cause standard for will/trust contests and counsel’s role)
- In re Shaheen Trust, 236 Ariz. 498 (App. 2015) (addresses enforceability of no-contest clauses and probable cause inquiry)
- Orme School v. Reeves, 166 Ariz. 301 (1990) (summary judgment standard and view of evidence in motions)
- Ader v. Estate of Felger, 240 Ariz. 32 (App. 2016) (statutory interpretation: plain language controls when assessing notice-related provisions)