## Facts

- Ralph V. Shumway executed a new will six days before his death.
- The will was prepared at Shumway’s request by Adelida Vega Rodriguez, his helper and bookkeeper, using will-drafting software; Shumway was severely visually impaired.
- Rodriguez held Shumway’s power of attorney, was nominated as personal representative, and received 25% of the estate; she was not related to Shumway and had not benefited under a prior will.
- Shumway was survived by four children and a brother; his daughter Virginia Gavette had been appointed personal representative before the new will was produced.
- Gavette contested the will, asserting undue influence (based on Rodriguez’s confidential relationship and benefit) and unauthorized practice of law (based on Rodriguez’s nonlawyer role in preparing the will).
- The will contained an in terrorem (no-contest) clause that imposed forfeiture on beneficiaries who contested the will.
- Medical evidence suggested possible vulnerability: Shumway’s physician considered him borderline competent during the last week of his life and clearly incompetent four days after execution.

## Issues

1. Under A.R.S. § 14-2517, what standard defines “probable cause” for a will contest that would render a no-contest clause unenforceable?
2. Whether, applying that standard, Gavette had probable cause to contest the will, barring forfeiture under the no-contest clause.

## Decision

- The Arizona Supreme Court held that “probable cause” under A.R.S. § 14-2517 is an objective, reasonableness-based standard assessed at the time the contest is initiated.
- The Court concluded Gavette had probable cause to contest the will based on the circumstances known when she filed.
- The Court reversed the portion of the probate judgment enforcing the no-contest clause and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.
- The Court left undisturbed the probate court’s determinations upholding the will’s validity, finding no undue influence (presumption rebutted by clear and convincing evidence), and finding no unauthorized practice of law.

## Legal Principles

- A.R.S. § 14-2517 makes a will’s no-contest clause unenforceable if the contestant had probable cause to bring the contest.
- “Probable cause” exists when, at the time of filing and with the benefit of proper legal advice and known facts, a reasonable person would conclude there is a substantial likelihood the contest will succeed.
- The probable-cause inquiry is distinct from the ultimate merits; a contest may fail after litigation yet still have been brought with probable cause.
- Factors supporting probable cause may include: a beneficiary’s confidential relationship with the decedent coupled with a substantial benefit under a late-executed will, medical evidence raising capacity concerns, and a nonlawyer’s significant involvement in preparing the dispositive instrument for a visually impaired testator.

## Conclusion

The court held that Arizona’s statutory probable-cause exception prevents forfeiture under a will’s no-contest clause when a reasonable, properly advised person would view the known facts as supporting a substantial likelihood of success at the time the contest is filed, even if the contest ultimately fails.


In re Estate of Shumway, 9 P.3d 1062 (Ariz. 2000)