FAQ

Register       Login

YOUR HELP NEEDED: If you find a cross-reference that does not match the rule or subsection it refers to or any apparent clerical errors, please let us know by sending a precise description to SACrtDocs@courts.az.gov.


News:  We have corrected an error that prevented users from accessing some current criminal rules via Westlaw.
Message from the Chief Justice


Current Arizona Rules on Westlaw

Amendments from Recent Rule Agendas

Rule Amendments (2006 to present) 

Advisory Committee on Rules of Evidence

 

Proposed Local Rules
                 Welcome!
This website allows you to electronically file and monitor court rule petitions and comments and to view existing rules of court, recent amendments of those rules, and pending rule petitions and comments. Any visitor to this site may view posts on this website, but to post a petition or comment you must register and log in. To view instructions on how to register and how to file a petition or comment, please visit our Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) page. 
PrevPrev Go to previous topic
NextNext Go to next topic
Last Post 14 Jun 2019 10:05 AM by  mmeltzer
R-18-0044 Petition to Amend the Arizona Rules of Probate Procedure
 9 Replies
Sort:
You are not authorized to post a reply.
Author Messages
Yolanda Fox
New Member
Posts:13 New Member

--
26 Dec 2018 11:44 AM
    Rebecca White Berch (Justice, ret.), Chair
    Task Force on the Arizona Rules of Probate Procedure, Petitioner
    1501 W. Washington St.
    Phoenix, AZ 85007
    602.452.3242
    mmeltzer@courts.az.gov

    Motion to Permit Additional Time for Filing a Rule Petition, with a Request for Expedited Consideration

    FILED: December 26, 2018


    IT IS ORDERED granting the Task Force’s Motion to Permit Additional Time for Filing a Rule Petition.

    IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Task Force file a rule petition in furtherance of Administrative Order No. 2017-133 no later than January 31, 2019, which petition shall be open for comment pursuant to Rule 28(D)(1).

    Would amend the Arizona Rules of Probate Procedure to conform to modern usage and to clarify and simplify language.
    Attachments
    Allyson Flanagan
    New Member
    Posts:23 New Member

    --
    31 Jan 2019 08:01 AM
    Rebecca White Berch (Justice, ret.), Chair
    Task Force on the Arizona Rules of Probate Procedure
    1501 West Washington Street, #410
    Phoenix AZ 85007
    602.452.3242
    mmeltzer@courts.az.gov

    This petition requests comprehensive amendments to the Arizona Rules of Probate Procedure.

    Comments must be submitted on or before May 1, 2019.

    Replies must be submitted on or before June 1, 2019.
    Attachments
    bfmember
    New Member
    Posts:2 New Member

    --
    18 Feb 2019 03:57 PM
    Emily Kile
    8727 E. Via De Commercio
    Scottsdale, AZ 85258
    Emily@kilekuplaw.com
    480-348-1590

    Rule 22 of the current rules allows the Court to approve a proof of restricted account that allows assets to be invested, rather than being FDIC insured. Rule 36 requires that all cases must use Form 10 for the proof of restricted accounts. Niether the Rule It is sed Forms. If Form 10 will require that all restricted accounts must be insured, incapacitated individual's financial investment opportunity will not exist and will harm incapacitated individuals. This is a bad outcome for these matters. Imagine having to cash out $1 million of investment so they can put in a CD or savings account. Besides the tax consequences of this action, the economic costs over the lifetime of this beneficiary may be detrimental. The cost to bond over a large amount of assets to avoid FDIC insured accounts is not a cost effective solution. While the Court may order a different restriction, it is unlikely that a financial institution will sign Form 10 if less restriction was ordered by the Court, such as allowing RMDs to be deposited to an unrestricted account or assets can remain invested in non FDIC insured accounts. I urge a change to the Rule that leaves the discretion of the Form used to the Court and does not require the use of Form 10.
    Kay Radwanski
    New Member
    Posts:13 New Member

    --
    15 Apr 2019 09:04 AM
    Kay Radwanski on behalf of the Committee on Superior Court
    Hon. David L. Mackey, Chair
    kradwanski@courts.az.gov
    602-452-3360

    On April 12, 2019, after hearing a presentation from the Hon. Jay Polk and the Hon. Patricia Norris (Ret.), the Committee on Superior Court, upon motion made and seconded, unanimously authorized Chairman Hon. David L. Mackey to file this comment on behalf of the committee.

    “The Committee on Superior Court supports Rule Petition R-18-0044, which proposes changes to the Arizona Rules of Probate Procedure. The committee recognizes the significant time and effort expended by the Probate Rules Task Force, under the leadership of its chair, Chief Justice Rebecca Berch (Ret.).”
    James McDougall
    New Member
    Posts:1 New Member

    --
    22 Apr 2019 02:18 PM
    James E. McDougall
    3101 N. Central Ave., Ste 1600
    602-200-7385
    JMcDougall@frgalaw.com
    Bar# 002452

    Comments to
    Proposed Probate Rule Amendments filed 1/30/19
    Rules 32 and 47 and Form 2-S

    Attachments
    beckett
    New Member
    Posts:1 New Member

    --
    01 May 2019 01:20 PM
    Robert L. Beckett, Attorney
    Attorney Bar No. 004034
    Dyer Bregman & Ferris PLLC
    3411 N. 5th Ave. Suite 300
    Phoenix, Arizona 85013
    602-254-6008 office
    602-257-4276
    rlbeckett@dbfazlaw.com


    Comments to Proposed Rule Amendment filed January 30, 2019
    Rules 36(b)(2) and Rule 44(e)
    Attachments
    BSwartz
    New Member
    Posts:1 New Member

    --
    01 May 2019 03:10 PM
    Bridget O'Brien Swartz
    AZ State Bar No. 016783
    Dyer Bregman & Ferris, PLLC
    3411 North 5th Ave., Suite 300
    Phoenix, AZ 85013
    Tel. no. (602) 254-6008
    Fax no. (602) 257-4276
    Email: boswartz@dbfazlaw.com

    COMMENT TO RULE 36(b)(2):
    I agree with the other comments concerning RULE 36(b)(2) relative to the Form 10 for Proofs of Restricted Account, that the proposed rule is too restrictive in providing for a mandatory form. I am an attorney who works on a number of substantial settlements of personal injury and wrongful death claims for protected minors and adults. As such, I am interacting with a variety of financial planners and financial institutions. I often experience resistance from financial institutions and brokerage firms to signing a generic form of proof of restriction on accounts. I have been able to work with these companies by "tweaking" the Proof form to satisfy the institution's concerns without compromising the intend of the Court's order to restrict. Sometimes verbiage is removed that is not necessary (such as mention of a minor when the matter concerns an adult) or verbiage is added specifically for that individual institution. On occasion, even more restrictive language is added to mimic an Order because the Proof is often the institution's mains source of documentation on that account. sometimes there are last minute revisions requested by the institution's legal department after an Order is already entered, despite having provided a copy of the Proof form prior to hearing and an Order being entered. These changes are usually so minor (from the probate point of view) that to require obtaining another Order would be a waste of time and money when a simple and non-substantive revision satisfies all involved, including the Court's restriction requirements. For these reason, I would like to see Form 10 as a RECOMMENDED form rather than a mandatory form.

    COMMENT TO RULE 45(e)(1):
    I am concerned, as are many others, that this proposed rule will not allow sufficient time to accommodate the many parts that go into preparing the Court account forms, including schedules of CPAs that often prepare the forms for institution and non-professional fiduciaries. The result will be filings of many more motions to continue, which is already the case with the current 90 day time allowance. This will interfere then with the approval of a prior accounting before the next one is filed!

    COMMENT TO RULE 53:
    Finally, I am very pleased with the proposed Rule 53, which provides for an express and formalized recognition and acceptance of the many options to "structure" a settlement for protected persons and also provides more clarity with regards to when a settlement must be approved ty the court.
    JJFotinos
    New Member
    Posts:4 New Member

    --
    01 May 2019 04:00 PM
    The Honorable Valerie Wyant
    President
    Arizona Association of Superior Court Clerks
    200 N. San Francisco St.
    Flagstaff, AZ 86001
    928-6790-7615
    fotinosj@cosc.maricopa.gov
    Attachments
    mmeltzer
    New Member
    Posts:23 New Member

    --
    16 May 2019 03:00 PM
    Rebecca White Berch (Justice, ret.), Chair
    Task Force on the Arizona Rules of Probate Procedure, Petitioner
    1501 W. Washington St.
    Phoenix, AZ 85007
    602.452.3242
    mmeltzer@courts.az.gov

    Motion to Permit Additional Time for Filing a Reply, with a Request for Expedited Consideration



    IT IS ORDERED granting the motion. The reply may be filed on or before June 14, 2019.
    Attachments
    mmeltzer
    New Member
    Posts:23 New Member

    --
    14 Jun 2019 10:05 AM
    Rebecca White Berch (Justice, ret.), Chair
    Task Force on the Arizona Rules of Probate Procedure
    1501 West Washington Street, #410
    Phoenix AZ 85007
    602.452.3242
    mmeltzer@courts.az.gov


    As provided in the Court's May 20, 2019 Order, Petitioner submits this Reply with three supporting appendices.
    Attachments
    You are not authorized to post a reply.