Beets v. Michaelson

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c); ARCAP 28(c); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE In the Matter of the Estate of: ) ) JAMES S. BLACKFORD, ) ) Deceased. ) __________________________________) JOAN BEETS, ) ) Petitioner/Appellant, ) ) v. ) ) ROBIN MICHAELSON, as Personal ) Representative of the Estate of ) James S. Blackford, Deceased, ) ) Respondent/Appellee. ) __________________________________) 1 CA-CV 11-0186 DIVISION ONE FILED: 03/13/2012 RUTH A. WILLINGHAM, CLERK BY: DLL DEPARTMENT A MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication Rule 28, Arizona Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County Cause No. PB2009-000137 and PB2009-000410 (Consolidated) The Honorable Richard L. Nothwehr, Judge Pro Tempore REVERSED AND REMANDED ________________________________________________________________ Law Offices of Michael E. St. George, PC By Michael E. St. George Attorneys for Petitioner/Appellant Tempe Curosh Law Group, PLLC Scottsdale By William J. Curosh And Blume Law Firm, PC Phoenix By Gary R. Blume Attorneys for Respondent/Appellee ________________________________________________________________ G O U L D, Judge ¶1 Appellant, Joan Beets, appeals from the superior court orders granting summary judgment to Appellee, Robin Michaelson, and declaring that James S. Blackford s ( Decedent s ) May 28, 2008 Last Will document. and Testament is a valid, legal and binding For the following reasons we reverse and remand. Factual and Procedural Background ¶2 28, Beets is Decedent s only surviving child. 2008, beneficiary Will ). Beets of was the Decedent s personal Will Until May representative dated March 17, and 2003 sole ( 2003 However, on May 28, 2008, Decedent executed a Last Will and Testament ( 2008 Will ) disinheriting Beets in favor of her son, Decedent s grandson, C. Beets. Michaelson, Decedent s The 2008 Will also named conservator, to be the personal representative of the Will and successor trustee of a revocable trust into which Decedent s residuary estate would pass. ¶3 In 2004, D. Holland, Decedent s nephew, was appointed as Decedent s limited guardian, and Michaelson was appointed as Decedent s conservator and as trustee of Decedent s revocable trust. Because Holland s health had deteriorated to the point that he could not continue as Decedent s guardian, the court held a hearing on May 28, 2008 2 to determine whether a replacement guardian should be appointed.1 Both Beets and Michaelson agreed that a guardianship was necessary; Decedent, however, opposed the guardianship, arguing he was self- sufficient. ¶4 At the conclusion of the guardianship hearing, the court found that Decedent was in continued need of a guardian and appointed Michaelson to serve in the place of Holland. The court found that the Decedent remains impaired by a mental disorder to the extent that he lacks sufficient understanding or capacity to make responsible decisions regarding his person, and further found that Decedent was an incapacitated person pursuant to A.R.S. Section 14-5101(1). ¶5 Decedent died on January 1, 2009. On February 6, Michaelson applied for informal probate of the 2008 Will and appointment as personal representative. filed a petition appointment objections as to representative, for formal personal the the probate of representative. appointment court On February 13, Beets of the 2003 Despite Michaelson consolidated Will both as and Beets personal matters and proceeded with informal probate of the 2008 Will, appointing Michaelson as personal representative. 1 Although the same judge who granted Michaelson s motion for summary judgment also presided over the remaining informal probate hearings held in this case, a different judge presided over the May 28, 2008 guardianship hearing. 3 ¶6 As of November 7, 2009, the estate consisting of various personalty items with an estimated value of $3,695 had been distributed between Beets and Beets son. The vast majority of Decedent s estate had passed into the trust pursuant to the 2008 Will. closing statement On January 22, 2010, Michaelson filed a indicating that the estate had been fully administered and all assets had been distributed to the persons entitled thereto. Michaelson asked the court to issue a ruling closing the estate. all references to Michaelson also moved the court to strike the Blackford Revocable Trust in Beets pleadings and to rule that the validity of the trust instrument was not before the court. The court initially Michaelson s motion to strike in November. granted Beets moved the court to reconsider; and after again considering Michaelson s motion and arguments presented by both parties, the court granted the motion to strike references to the trust on December 30, 2010. ¶7 In November 2010, Michaelson filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that Beets failed to prove her claim contesting the 2008 Will. Michaelson claimed that Decedent had testamentary Decedent s capacity and that well-known and expressed Beets in favor of Beets son. the resulting Will reflected intentions to disinherit Beets did not file an objection; the court granted Michaelson s motion for summary judgment and 4 ordered that document. the 2008 Will was a valid, legal and binding Beets timely appealed. Jurisdiction ¶8 At the jurisdiction. Beets is January outset, argues we do not have Beets amended notice of appeal indicates that appealing 26, Michaelson 2011, from the granting court s signed Michaelson s order, motion filed for on summary judgment and declaring the 2008 Will a valid, legal and binding document. In an unsupervised administration, an order terminating a formal proceeding is an appealable order under Arizona Revised Statutes ( A.R.S. ) section 12-2101(J). See In re Estate of McGarthy, 226 Ariz. 277, 280, ¶ 17, 246 P.3d 628, 631 (2010) (holding that a court s order that finally resolves the proceeding is appealable). Here, the court s signed order finding the 2008 Will to be valid terminated the proceedings, and thus was an appealable order. Discussion ¶9 Beets argues the court improperly granted summary judgment because a dispute existed as to whether Decedent had testamentary capacity when he executed the 2008 Will. Summary judgment is appropriate when the record shows that there is no real dispute as to any material facts and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. United Bank of Ariz. v. Allyn, 167 Ariz. 191, 194-95, 805 P.2d 1012, 1015-16 (App. 5 1990); Ariz. R. Civ. P. 56(c). When reviewing a grant of summary judgment we determine de novo whether there are any genuine issues of material fact. Prince v. City of Apache Junction, 185 Ariz. 43, 45, 912 P.2d 47, 49 (App. 1996). We view the facts in the light most favorable to the party against whom judgment was entered. ¶10 We hold that the court s grant of summary judgment was improper. to Id. Although Beets did not file any responsive pleading Michaelson s motion for summary judgment, the record presented to the court2 revealed a genuine factual dispute as to Decedent s capacity namely that the court found Decedent incompetent and appointed a guardian on the same day Decedent executed the 2008 Will. See Allyn, 167 Ariz. at 196, 805 P.2d at 1017 (stating that a court has an independent duty to review the record presented by the parties to ensure that summary judgment is appropriate even when the non-moving party fails to respond to the motion). ¶11 We conclusively do not decide determined the that issue 2 the of guardianship proceedings Decedent s testamentary When the court granted summary judgment in favor of Michaelson, in addition to a number of prior hearings where the issue of Decedent s competency had been discussed, the court s file contained a minute entry from the guardianship hearing stating that as of May 28, 2008 - the same day Decedent executed the 2008 Will - a court had already determined that Decedent was impaired by a mental disorder. 6 capacity. As the court stated in In re Thomas Estate, 105 Ariz. 186, 189, 461 P.2d 484, 487 (1969), [a]n adjudication of incompetency under the guardianship statute does not of necessity indicate a lack of mental capacity to execute a will. 3 See also, In re Teel s Estate, 14 Ariz. App. 371, 373, 483 P.2d 603, 605 (1971) (stating that a testator that had a guardian appointed ten months after he executed the Will did not automatically lack capacity); In re Silva s Estate, 105 Ariz. 243, 247, 462 P.2d 792, 796 (1969) (stating that presumption of testamentary capacity can continue after testator is adjudicated incompetent because of possibility of lucid intervals). Rather, we hold only that the court s grant of summary judgment was not warranted because the findings from the guardianship hearing created a material fact dispute as to Decedent s testamentary capacity. 3 For the same reason, Beets argument that the guardianship hearing collaterally estops Michaelson from claiming Decedent was competent to execute the 2008 Will fails. Collateral estoppel, or issue preclusion, binds a party to a decision on an issue litigated in a previous lawsuit ; Decedent s testamentary capacity was not litigated at the guardianship hearing. See Campbell v. SZL Props., Ltd., 204 Ariz. 221, 223, ¶ 9, 62 P.3d 966, 968 (App. 2003). 7 Conclusion ¶12 For the reasons above, we reverse the grant of summary judgment against Beets and remand for further proceedings. /S/ ___________________________________ ANDREW W. GOULD, Judge CONCURRING: /S/ ____________________________________ MAURICE PORTLEY, Presiding Judge /S/ ____________________________________ ANN A. SCOTT TIMMER, Judge 8

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.