Marianne Waldow v. James Laporta
226 Ariz. 277
| Ariz. | 2010Background
- Arizona probate, unsupervised administration, and a petition for instructions on estate taxes were filed by Marianne Waldow as personal representative for Rosanne L. McGathy.
- The superior court ordered nonprobate transferees to pay their pro rata share of estate taxes; the order was a final judgment under Rule 54(b).
- James M. LaPorta, a nonprobate beneficiary, timely appealed the tax-payment order.
- The court of appeals dismissed sua sponte for lack of jurisdiction, citing Ivancovich v. Meier and holding the order reviewable only in a final decree distributing the estate.
- The Arizona Supreme Court granted review to resolve appellate jurisdiction over judgments in formal probate proceedings under title 14, and to address unsupervised administration.
- The court distinguishes Ivancovich (supervised administration) from the present unsupervised context and holds that an appeal of a final disposition of a formal proceeding in an unsupervised administration is permissible under § 12‑2101(J).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the tax payment order is appealable under § 12-2101(J) in an unsupervised administration. | LaPorta contends the order is appealable as a final disposition of a formal proceeding. | Waldow/estate argues the order is not appealable under Ivancovich. | Yes; § 12-2101(J) permits appeal of the final disposition of each formal proceeding in an unsupervised administration. |
| Does Ivancovich control the appealability analysis in unsupervised administration? | Ivancovich should apply, making the tax order non-appealable until final decree. | Ivancovich is distinguishable; unsupervised administration permits immediate appeal of final dispositional orders. | Ivancovich is distinguishable; this case allows appeal of the final disposition of a formal proceeding in unsupervised administration. |
| Should the court adopt the UPC-based framework to allow review of final formal proceedings? | UPC-style rules support timely appeal of final determinations. | UPC framework does not bar appeal of final dispositional orders in informal unsupervised contexts. | Agreement that final disposition of a formal proceeding in unsupervised administration is appealable under § 12-2101(J). |
Key Cases Cited
- Ivancovich v. Meier, 122 Ariz. 346, 595 P.2d 24 (1979) (distinguished for supervised administration; tax order interlocutory prior to final decree)
- In re Estate Kerr, 137 Ariz. 25, 667 P.2d 1351 (App. 1983) (discussed appealability standards; context of pre-UPC guidance)
- Estate of Newalla, 837 P.2d 1373 (N.M. App. 1992) (holding that finality for unsupervised proceedings can be achieved per formal proceeding)
- Scott v. Scott, 136 P.3d 892 (Colo. 2006) (distinguishes supervised vs unsupervised and allows appeal of final formal proceedings)
- Estate of Christensen v. Christensen, 655 P.2d 646 (Utah 1982) (notes finality concerns in unsupervised probate proceedings)