In re Lopez (Feb. 27, 2026)

Case details
Full caption
In the Matter of the Estate of Arturo Lopez
Country
United States
Jurisdiction
Arizona (AZ)
Court
Arizona Supreme Court
Decided
Feb. 27, 2026
Disposition
Affirmed
Majority
Fabian (Judge), joined by Brown (Presiding Judge), Weinzweig (Vice Chief Judge)
In the Matter of the Estate of: ARTURO LOPEZ,..., Not Reported in Pac.... © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.12026 WL 555638Only 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 UNDERARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c),THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL ANDMAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division 1.In the Matter of the Estate of:ARTURO LOPEZ, Deceased.TERESA DOMINGUEZ, Petitioner/Appellee,v.MESHELLE ROWLAND, Respondent/Appellant,andDIRK VANDERMEER, Respondent/Appellee.No. 1 CA-CV 25-0041 PB|FILED 02-27-2026Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa CountyPB2023-002132 The Honorable Lisa Ann VandenBerg, Judge(Retired)AFFIRMEDAttorneys and Law FirmsPlatt & Westby P.C., Phoenix By R. Andrew Rahtz and CierraN. Chaon Counsel for Petitioner/AppelleeMeShelle Rowland, Phoenix Respondent/AppellantDirk Vandermeer, Phoenix Respondent/AppelleeJudge Veronika Fabian delivered the decision of the Court,in which Presiding Judge Michael J. Brown and Vice ChiefJudge David D. Weinzweig joined.MEMORANDUM DECISIONFABIAN, Judge:*1 ¶1 MeShelle Rowland (“Sister-in-law”) appeals fromthe superior court's judgment setting aside the will of ArturoLopez (“Decedent”). Sister-in-law makes several arguments,including: (1) the superior court erred in ordering separatepretrial statements, (2) the court erred in sanctioning her, (3)appellee Teresa Dominguez (“Sister”) committed fraud on thecourt, (4) the court demonstrated judicial bias, (5) the recorddoes not support the court's findings, and (6) the court erred inawarding attorney fees. For the following reasons, this Courtaffirms.FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY¶2 Sister is a surviving sibling of Decedent, and Sister-in-law is married to another surviving sibling of Decedent,Dirk Vandermeer (“Brother”). Decedent's will, signed oneweek before his death, directed various amounts of cashbe distributed to his mother and siblings and left hisremaining personal property and residuary estate to Sister-in-law. The will also nominated Sister-in-law as the personalrepresentative of the estate. At the same time, Decedentexecuted a grant deed, making himself and Sister-in-law jointtenants with rights of survivorship to certain real property forthe consideration of one dollar.¶3 Sister petitioned for formal probate after Decedent's death,alleging the will and grant deed were the products of undueinfluence by Sister-in-law. On that basis, Sister requested thatthe will and deed be invalidated and Sister-in-law not beappointed as personal representative. Sister also alleged thatBrother conspired with Sister-in-law to exert undue influenceon Decedent and should also be disqualified from serving aspersonal representative of the estate.¶4 The superior court set a three-day bench trial. At thepretrial conference, the court instructed the parties to fileseparate, not joint, pretrial statements. The court did notrequire Sister-in-law to submit a pretrial statement butexplained that Sister-in-law must still disclose witnesses andexhibits five days before trial or risk exclusion.¶5 Sister-in-law filed her pretrial statement, which includedpreviously undisclosed witnesses and evidence, the daybefore trial. As a result, the court sanctioned Sister-in-law byprecluding her from using exhibits or any witnesses besidesherself and Brother.¶6 After trial, the superior court entered judgment, findingthat Sister-in-law was not credible and was not suitable to actas personal representative. The court also found the grant deedwas falsely recorded and the will was the product of Sister-in-law's undue influence. It set aside the deed and will andawarded Sister $75,343 in attorney fees against Sister-in-lawand Brother pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 12-1101(A), 33-420, and
In the Matter of the Estate of: ARTURO LOPEZ,..., Not Reported in Pac.... © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.244-1105. With no will in place, the court ordered Decedent'sestate be distributed through intestate succession.¶7 Sister-in-law timely appealed. This Court has jurisdictionpursuant to Article VI, Section 9 of the Arizona Constitutionand A.R.S. §§ 12-120.21(A)(1) and 2101(A)(1).1DISCUSSIONI. The Superior Court Did Not Err by RequiringSeparate Joint Pretrial Statements.*2 ¶8 Sister-in-law argues the superior court erred bynot mandating a joint pretrial statement as required byArizona Rule of Civil Procedure 16(f). This Court reviews theapplication and interpretation of the Arizona Rules of CivilProcedure de novo. See Duckstein v. Wolf, 230 Ariz. 227, 231 8 (App. 2012).¶9 Although Rule 16(f) requires that parties submit a jointpretrial statement, “Rule 16(f)’s provisions may be modifiedby court order.” Ariz. R. Civ. P 16(f)(8). Thus, the superiorcourt did not err and was in fact authorized to allow the partiesto file individual, rather than joint, pretrial statements.II. The Superior Court Did Not Err in SanctioningSister-in-Law.¶10 Sister-in-law next argues the superior court erred andviolated Sister-in-law's due process rights by precluding heruntimely disclosed witnesses and evidence as a sanctionunder Rule 16. This Court reviews Rule 16 sanctions,including preclusion of witnesses and evidence, for an abuseof discretion. Smith v. Olsen, 257 Ariz. 518, 526 23 (App.2024).¶11 Sister-in-law argues sanctions were unjustified becauseher untimely disclosure was only minimally delayed.But Sister-in-law filed her pretrial statement, includingdisclosures on evidence and witnesses, the day before trial.The filing of a pretrial statement and disclosures on the eveof trial causes substantial prejudice. See Allstate Ins. Co.v. O'Toole, 182 Ariz. 284, 288 (1995) (“A slight delay ...where the trial date has not yet been set, clearly may be lessprejudicial than that resulting from an attempt to disclosenew witnesses just before trial.”). Because the disclosure wasmade on the eve of trial, Sister did not have the opportunityto investigate, prepare a thorough cross-examination, orevaluate how the untimely disclosures affected her theory ofthe case. This is substantial prejudice.¶12 Although the superior court did not require Sister-in-law to file a pretrial statement, it clearly explained she mustdisclose a “list of witnesses and exhibits with the Court at leastfive days prior” to trial, the same deadline it had set for thepretrial statement. The court even warned Sister-in-law thatfailure to do so could result in “precluding either a witness oran exhibit.” Sister-in-law has shown no error.III. Sister-in-Law Did Not Demonstrate That SisterCommitted Fraud on the Court.¶13 Sister-in-law argues Sister committed fraud on the courtby submitting a fraudulent protective order at trial. “Whena party obtains a judgment by concealing material facts andsuppressing the truth with the intent to mislead the court, thisconstitutes a fraud upon the court, and the court has the powerto set aside the judgment at any time.” Cypress on SunlandHomeowners Ass'n v. Orlandini, 227 Ariz. 288, 299 42(App. 2011). “Fraud on the court must be established by clearand convincing evidence, and it necessarily requires that theperpetrator knew at the time that the offending conduct wasfalse or would mislead the court.” Garcia v. Ison, __ Ariz.___, ___ 14, 576 P.3d 117, 121 (App. 2025).¶14 During trial, Sister introduced into evidence an orderof protection filed by Decedent against Sister-in-law. Thecase number on the exhibit was originally stamped FC andthen corrected to FN. Sister-in-law objected to its admission,arguing the FC stamp showed the case number correspondedwith a different case. The superior court took judicial noticethat the case number began with FN, rather than FC as Sister-in-law believed, and admitted the exhibit.*3 ¶15 Sister-in-law has not demonstrated that any supposederror in the case number on the exhibit indicates that Sister“conceal[ed] material facts” or “suppress[ed] the truth withthe intent to mislead the court.” See Cypress, 227 Ariz. at299 42. She therefore has not shown fraud on the court. Id.The superior court's search of case records, which promptedjudicial notice, showed the stamped case number on theexhibit reflected the correct case.IV. Sister-in-Law Has Not Demonstrated Judicial Bias¶16 Sister-in-law asserts the superior court's actions insanctioning her, admitting Sister's exhibit, and making
In the Matter of the Estate of: ARTURO LOPEZ,..., Not Reported in Pac.... © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.3comments to the parties, amounted to judicial bias that deniedher a fair proceeding.¶17 “A party challenging a trial judge's impartiality mustovercome the presumption that trial judges are free of biasand prejudice.” Simon v. Maricopa Med. Ctr., 225 Ariz. 55,63 29 (App. 2010) (internal quotation marks and citationomitted). “Judicial rulings alone do not support a finding ofbias or partiality without a showing of an extrajudicial sourceof bias or a deep-seated favoritism.” Stagecoach Trails MHC,L.L.C. v. City of Benson, 232 Ariz. 562, 568 21 (App. 2013).¶18 As discussed above, the superior court did not err insanctioning Sister-in-law or admitting Sister's exhibit. AndSister-in-law has not shown how these rulings otherwiseovercome the presumption that trial judges are free frombias. Although Sister-in-law asserts the superior court madecomments that reflected “strategic guidance to opposingcounsel,” she does not properly cite to the alleged “guidance”and this Court's review of the trial transcripts reveals none.That portion of her argument is therefore waived. See Sholesv. Fernando, 228 Ariz. 455, 460 14, n.3 (App. 2011) (“[T]heargument fails to make any citations to the record or tothe relevant authority. Therefore, the argument is waived.”);Ariz. R. Civ. App. P. 13(a)(7)(A) (An argument must contain“appropriate references to the portions of the record on whichthe appellant relies.”).V. The Record Contains Substantial Evidence to Supportthe Superior Court's Findings.¶19 Sister-in-law argues the superior court's findings lackedevidentiary support and the court misapplied the law.Specifically, she argues: (1) the court's finding of undueinfluence was unsupported, (2) the court could not concludeDecedent was of unsound mind without expert testimony, (3)the court mischaracterized Sister-in-law's prior conviction ascrimen falsi (a crime of falsehood), and (4) Sister was not acredible witness. “In reviewing a trial court's findings of fact,we do not reweigh conflicting evidence ... but examine therecord only to determine whether substantial evidence existsto support the trial court's action.” In re Est. of Pouser, 193Ariz. 574, 579 13 (1999).¶20 The following, non-exclusive, eight factors “have beentreated as significant indicia of the presence or absence ofsuch [undue] influence:”Whether the alleged influencer hasmade fraudulent representations to thetestat[or]; whether the execution of thewill was the product of hasty action;whether the execution of the willwas concealed from others; whetherthe person benefited by the will wasactive in securing its drafting andexecution; whether the will as drawnwas consistent or inconsistent withprior declarations and plannings ofthe testat[or]; whether the will wasreasonable rather than unnatural inview of the testat[or's] circumstances,attitudes, and family; whether thetestat[or] was a person susceptibleto undue influence; and whether thetestat[or] and the beneficiary havebeen in a confidential relationship.*4 Rosenberg v. Sanders, 256 Ariz. 359, 364 26 (2023)(quoting In re McCauley's Est., 101 Ariz. 8, 10–11 (1966)).“A presumption of undue influence arises when one occupiesa confidential relationship with the testator and is active inpreparing or procuring the execution of a will in which he orshe is a principal beneficiary.” Mullin v. Brown, 210 Ariz. 545,547 4 (App. 2005).¶21 The superior court found several indicia of undueinfluence, including: (1) in 2020 the Department of AdultProtective Services found Decedent was a vulnerable adultand susceptible to undue influence; (2) on the very same dayDecedent signed the will and grant deed, Sister-in-law helpedhim leave the hospital against medical advice while he wassuffering from dementia; (3) Sister-in-law benefitted from thewill and acted to conceal the will from other family members;(4) the will was inconsistent with Decedent's previous wishes;(5) it was unnatural for Decedent to leave the bulk of his estateto Sister-in-law, whom he had known only for about a year;and (6) a confidential relationship existed between Decedentand Sister-in-law based on her testimony.¶22 Sister-in-law does not challenge any of these findings,except for the existence of a confidential relationship. Aconfidential relationship can be formed if there is “greatintimacy, disclosure of secrets, [e]ntrusting of power, and
In the Matter of the Estate of: ARTURO LOPEZ,..., Not Reported in Pac.... © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.4superiority of position in the case of the representative.”Condos v. Felder, 92 Ariz. 366, 371 (1962).¶23 When addressing the existence of a confidentialrelationship with Decedent, Sister-in-law stated, “Okay. Well,if I did, it was the last week. Before that, he didn't trust mefor nothing.... I would like to say that he did trust me, but Iwas the only one who he could trust. I'll stop there.” Sister-in-law testified she “took care of” Decedent and “tried to engagein private conversations with [Decedent] all the time.” Shealso testified she had “initially assumed that [Decedent] wassusceptible to undue influence.” On this record, the superiorcourt heard substantial evidence to support its finding ofa confidential relationship. Even if it did not, the otherunchallenged findings of the court support a finding of undueinfluence. See Rosenberg, 256 Ariz. at 364 26.¶24 Sister-in-law cites no legal authority to support herposition that expert testimony is required for a finding ofunsound mind. Her argument is thus waived. See Sholes,228 Ariz. at 460 14, n.3; Ariz. R. Civ. App. P. 13(a)(7) (each contention must contain “citation to supportinglegal authority”). Similarly, Sister-in-law's argument that thesuperior court improperly characterized her prior convictionfor felony escape as a crimen falsi, a crime attributed todishonesty, is waived because she did not object at thehearing. See Manner v. Raskin, 113 Ariz. 3, 4 (1976) (“failureto object” to alleged improper remarks “is deemed a waiverof the issue on appeal”).¶25 As to Sister-in-law's argument that Sister was notcredible, “it is not the function of this court ... to second-guess the credibility determinations of the judge who had theopportunity to evaluate the witnesses’ demeanor and makeinformed credibility determinations.” In re Est. of Newman,219 Ariz. 260, 271 40 (App. 2008).VI. The Superior Court Did Not Err in AwardingAttorney Fees.*5 ¶26 Finally, Sister-in-law argues the superior court'saward of $75,343 in attorney fees was improper andexcessive. This Court reviews the award for an abuse ofdiscretion. See In re Aiylam & Saranya Krishnan Living Tr.,___ Ariz. ___, ___ 13, 2026 WL 97977, at *2 (App. 2026).¶27 Sister-in-law argues the superior court erred in awardingattorney fees because it did not consider any of the factorsset forth in Associated Indemnity Corporation v. Warner, 143Ariz. 567, 570 (1985). She also argues the award of fees wasimproper under Woerth v. City of Flagstaff, 167 Ariz. 412(App. 1990), because she does not have the financial abilityto pay it. However, neither case is applicable here becauseboth deal with the factors a court should consider whenawarding attorney fees for matters arising out of contractunder A.R.S. § 12-341.01. Warner, 143 Ariz. at 570; Woerth,167 Ariz. at 420. Here, the court awarded attorney fees underA.R.S. §§ 12-1101(A), 33-420, and 44-1105 and not A.R.S.§ 12-341.01.¶28 With respect to Sister-in-law's claim that the fees wereexcessive, “[a] party challenging the amount of fees requestedmust provide specific references to the record and specifywhich amount or items are excessive.” In re Indenture of Tr.Dated Jan. 13, 1964, 235 Ariz. 40, 52-53 (App. 2014). Inher amended opening brief, Sister-in-law does not specifywhich fees were excessive. Thus, the superior court's awardof attorney fees is affirmed.VII. Sister-in-Law's Appellate Briefs.¶29 Sister asserts “Appellant's Amended Opening Briefappears to be copied and pasted from Artificial Intelligencesoftware, resulting in a seventy-two-page brief that is difficultto understand.” This Court's review reveals that severalof Sister-in-law's legal citations contain substantial defects,including unsupported premises and fabricated quotations.Thus, this Court finds Sister-in-law's opening brief and replybrief violate Arizona Rule of Civil Appellate Procedure 13(a)(7), which requires that arguments contain citations to legalauthority.¶30 Compliance with this Court's rules is not optional. Theintegrity of the appellate process depends on accurate andhonest advocacy. In the future, failure to provide accuratelegal authority may result in sanctions. See Ariz. R. Civ. App.P. 13(a)(7).VIII. Attorney Fees on Appeal.¶31 Sister requests attorney fees and costs on appeal pursuantto A.R.S. §§ 33-420, 14-1105, and 12-342. In its discretion,this Court denies Sister's request for attorney fees. BecauseSister is the prevailing party, this Court awards her costspursuant to A.R.S. § 12-342 upon compliance with ArizonaRule of Civil Appellate Procedure 21.CONCLUSION
In the Matter of the Estate of: ARTURO LOPEZ,..., Not Reported in Pac.... © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.5¶32 For the foregoing reasons, this Court affirms the superiorcourt's judgment.All CitationsNot Reported in Pac. Rptr., 2026 WL 555638Footnotes1Sister-in-law filed an amended notice of appeal challenging several of the court's rulings aside from thejudgment. That notice was not filed within 30 days after the judgment; rather, it was filed within 30 days of thesuperior court's order denying Sister-in-law's motion under Rule 59 of the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure. Atimely filed motion to alter or amend the judgment or for a new trial under Rule 59 will suspend the running oftime to file a notice of appeal until after the superior court has entered a signed written order disposing of themotion. Ariz. R. Civ. App. P. 9(e)(1)(C), (D). However, Sister-in-law's Rule 59 motion was untimely becauseit was not filed within 15 days after the court's entry of judgment and thus did not extend the time for Sister-in-law to file an amended notice of appeal. See id.; Ariz. R. Civ. P. 59(b)(1), (d). Because the amended noticeof appeal is untimely, it will not be considered by this Court.End 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