In re Kuerschner (Mar. 5, 2026)

Case details
Full caption
In the Matter of the Estate of Kuerschner
Country
United States
Jurisdiction
Arizona (AZ)
Court
Arizona Supreme Court
Decided
Mar. 5, 2026
Disposition
Dismissed
Majority
Weinzweig (Vice Chief Judge), joined by Brown (Presiding Judge), Fabian (Judge)
In the Matter of the Estate of: THOMAS W...., Not Reported in Pac.... © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.12026 WL 619894Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDERARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c),THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL ANDMAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division 1.In the Matter of the Estate of: THOMASW. KUERSCHNER, Deceased.STEFANIE A. KUERSCHNER, Appellant,v.JAMES T. KUERSCHNER, as Personal Representativeof the Estate of Thomas W. Kuerschner, Appellee.No. 1 CA-CV 25-0491 PB|FILED 03-05-2026Editor's Note: This decision contains discussion of citationreferences that are incorrect or do not actually exist. Theseinvalid citations appeared in the original court opinion andhave been preserved as written since they are part of theofficial record. Any links to these invalid citations have beenremoved.Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No.PB2021-003597 The Honorable Lisa Ann VandenBerg, JudgeRetiredAPPEAL DISMISSEDAttorneys and Law FirmsStefanie A. Kuerschner, Carefree AppellantFrazer, Ryan, Goldberg & Arnold, LLP, Phoenix By Scott A.Erickson, Philip B. Whitaker Counsel for AppelleeVice Chief Judge David D. Weinzweig delivered the decisionof the Court, in which Presiding Judge Michael J. Brown andJudge Veronika Fabian joined.MEMORANDUM DECISIONWEINZWEIG, Vice Chief Judge:*1 ¶1 Stefanie Kuerschner appeals two attorney feesanctions that the superior court imposed after she continuedto litigate her deceased husband's probate case—despitehaving lost on all claims. We dismiss her appeal and imposesanctions because she continues to violate our rules byfabricating case citations and omitting record references.FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND¶2 Thomas Kuerschner died in June 2021. His will excludedhis widow, Stefanie, from receiving any assets, but shemaintained her community interest in their Scottsdale house.Stefanie filed a notice of claims against the estate for statutoryallowances, community property, the proceeds from twopromissory notes and Thomas’ life insurance policies.¶3 The superior court appointed Thomas’ son, JamesKuerschner, as personal representative of the estate. Jamesallowed Stefanie's claims for the funeral expenses andstatutory allowances but rejected her other claims. At trial,the court rejected Stefanie's remaining claims. The court alsofound Stefanie had unnecessarily extended the proceedingsand awarded James as personal representative $291,377.28in attorney fees and costs pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 12-341 and14-1105.¶4 Another panel of this court affirmed that decision andordered Stefanie to pay James’ appellate attorney fees forpursuing meritless claims. In re Est. of Kuerschner, 1 CA-CV 25-0108, 2025 WL 2780806, at *8, ¶¶ 50–51 (Ariz.App. Sept. 30, 2025) (mem. decision). The panel also warnedStefanie about providing incorrect citations and omittingrecord references. Id. at *5, ¶¶ 29–30. Despite that warning,she continued.¶5 After losing at trial, Stefanie issued 22 subpoenas seekingbank records even though discovery had closed. The superiorcourt quashed the subpoenas, but she continued to serve them.¶6 The superior court granted James’ motion for a temporaryrestraining order, quashed the outstanding subpoenas andimposed attorney-fee sanctions on Stefanie. The court foundStefanie had served the subpoenas after discovery closedwithout proper notice, all in defiance of court orders.¶7 Stefanie filed a motion alleging the superior court hadissued a minute entry reinstating her business’ claims, butthe minute entry had disappeared from the record. She
In the Matter of the Estate of: THOMAS W...., Not Reported in Pac.... © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.2accused either James or a court clerk of fraudulently removingthe minute entry from the court file. The court struck hermotion as “impertinent and scandalous,” finding she had nogood faith basis for her allegations. The court again orderedStefanie to pay James’ attorney fees as a sanction.¶8 Stefanie timely appealed both sanction awards. We havejurisdiction. A.R.S. §§ 12-2101(A)(2), -120.21(A)(1).DISCUSSION¶9 To appeal a civil judgment, the appellant must complywith the Arizona Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure. ARCAP1. An appellant who fails to make a reasonably intelligenteffort to comply with the rules waives unsupported issues.Ramos v. Nichols, 252 Ariz. 519, 522, 8 (App. 2022). Wemay sanction parties who violate these rules with contempt,dismissal and costs or attorney fees. ARCAP 25.*2 ¶10 Rule 13 requires an appellant's briefs to provide“citations of legal authorities and appropriate references tothe portions of the record on which the appellant relies.”ARCAP 13(a)(7)(A). Stefanie's briefs do neither. Her briefsdo not refer to the record. Record references allow the courtto quickly verify the parties’ factual assertions are supportedby the record. Without them, the court must ferret through avast record with no direction. The record here contains over1,200 documents, many of which are over a hundred pageslong and were submitted after briefing was completed. Weneed not assume the duties of an advocate to search the recordand support Stefanie's claims. See Adams v. Valley Nat'l Bankof Ariz., 139 Ariz. 340, 343 (App. 1984).¶11 On top of that, Stefanie's briefs contain 25 citations thatare made up or contain substantial errors like fake quotes orunsupported propositions. For example:• Stefanie cites “Orlandini v. Crawford (Arizona Court ofAppeals).” After diligent efforts, we cannot locate a casebearing this name.• Stefanie quotes “Wallace v. Hon. Smith/Miller, 254Ariz. 59, 61 1 (2023)” as saying Rule 7 and §12-2108 “together provide the exclusive framework fordetermining supersedeas bonds” and that fee awards areoutside the definition of damages awarded. A case withthe name Wallace v. Smith does exist and discusses §12-2108, but it does not contain this quote. See generallyWallace v. Smith, 255 Ariz. 377 (2023). And her citationpoints to a different case named Zambrano v. M & RC IILLC, 254 Ariz. 53 (2022).• Stefanie states in Takieh v. O'Meara, 252 Ariz. 51 (App.2021), this court “vacated sanctions where a claim,though ultimately unsuccessful, was supported by areasonable basis.” In reality, this court upheld a sanctionof attorney fees because the appellant's claims werepremised on supposition and speculation. Id. at 63, 43.• Stefanie cites In re Estate of Stewart, 230 Ariz. 480, 486, 26 (App. 2012) for the proposition that “courts mustexercise caution in fee awards in probate to ensure theyare just and do not unfairly consume a party's rightfulshare.” But Stewart never even discusses attorney fees.See generally id.¶12 This is Stefanie's second offense. We already admonishedher in her prior appeal for these exact violations. Kuerschner,1 CA-CV 25-0108, at *5, ¶¶ 29–30.¶13 We find Stefanie's repeated and unrepentant violationswarrant sanctions under ARCAP 25 to discourage similarbehavior. Although we are generally reluctant to impose suchsanctions, In re $15,379 in U.S. Currency, 241 Ariz. 462, 472, 32 (App. 2016), recidivism after a warning justifies thisresult.CONCLUSION¶14 We dismiss Stefanie's appeal under ARCAP 25 becauseshe continues to fabricate citations and omit record referencesdespite our prior warning.¶15 Because counsel for James spent time and resourcesidentifying Stefanie's violations, we award James hisreasonable attorney fees and costs under ARCAP 25 uponcompliance with ARCAP 21. See also A.R.S. § 12-349.All CitationsNot Reported in Pac. Rptr., 2026 WL 619894End of Document© 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
ProvenanceKnow exactly where this document came from.Members see the sourcing behind every authority on DocPost — so you can check the record yourself and cite with confidence.Request access