IN RE THE SHAHEEN TRUST U/A 1/12/1994, AS RESTATED 7/21/2000
Appeal from the Superior Court in Pima County. No. PB20090213. The Honorable Kyle Bryson, Judge.
Munger Chadwick, P.L.C., Tucson, By Thomas A. Denker, Counsel for Appellant Twinkle Shaheen.
Catherine Roberts, Jacksonville, Florida, George Roberts, Dunnellon, Florida, In Propria Personae.
Chief Judge Eckerstrom authored the opinion of the Court, in which Judge Espinosa and Judge Kelly concurred.
[236 Ariz. 499] ECKERSTROM, Chief Judge:
[¶1] Twinkle Shaheen appeals from the trial court's judgment refusing to apply a forfeiture provision of the Shaheen Trust against Catherine " Pearl" Roberts and her son, George Roberts (collectively " the Robertses" ), after they alleged breach of trust against Shaheen. For the following reasons, we reverse in part and remand.
Factual and Procedural Background
[¶2] The Shaheen Trust was established in 1994, with Shaheen as the trustee. The trust included a no-contest provision, stating:
If any beneficiary under this Trust, in any manner, directly or indirectly, contests or attacks the validity of either Settlor's Will, this Trust or any disposition under either, by filing suit against . . . Trustee . . . then any share or interest given to that beneficiary under the provisions of this Trust is hereby revoked and shall be disposed of in the same manner as if that contesting beneficiary and all descendants of that beneficiary had predeceased the Surviving Settlor.
The Robertses, both beneficiaries of the trust, filed a petition alleging multiple claims of breach of trust. Shaheen filed a counter-petition seeking an award of fees and forfeiture of beneficial interest. The trial court denied all of the Robertses' claims.
[236 Ariz. 500] The
court awarded Shaheen her costs and attorney fees, but denied her request to declare the Robertses' interests in the trust forfeited. Shaheen challenges the latter ruling on appeal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to ...