## Facts

- Ronald E. Podgorski married Patricia Podgorski in 1987. Patricia had two children from a prior relationship: Krista Jones and Douglas Olson.
- Ronald did not adopt Krista or Douglas, and he had no biological children.
- In 2007, Ronald executed a will naming Krista and Douglas as co-personal representatives and directing that his probate estate “pour over” to a family trust.
- At about the same time, Ronald and Patricia created the “Ronald E. Podgorski and Patricia A. Podgorski Family Trust,” which named Krista and Douglas as the trust’s beneficiaries and nominated them to serve as successor co-trustees at Ronald’s death.
- Ronald and Patricia divorced in December 2016, and Ronald did not amend his will or the trust after the divorce.
- After the divorce, Ronald continued an ongoing relationship with his (now adult) stepchildren.
- Ronald died in April 2018. Krista submitted the will for informal probate and was appointed personal representative.
- Ronald’s siblings, Raymond Podgorski and Barbara Fischer, petitioned the superior court to (1) remove Krista as personal representative and (2) remove Krista and Douglas as trustees, arguing that Arizona’s revocation-on-divorce statute automatically revoked dispositions and fiduciary nominations in favor of Patricia’s children.
- The siblings contended that if the will and trust provisions for Krista and Douglas were revoked, Ronald died intestate and the estate should pass to his statutory heirs (the siblings).
- Krista argued the statute did not revoke the will and trust provisions for her and Douglas given Ronald’s continued relationship with them after the divorce.
- The superior court granted summary judgment for Krista. Raymond and Barbara appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether A.R.S. § 14-2804 (revocation on divorce) revoked Ronald’s testamentary dispositions and fiduciary nominations in favor of his former stepchildren after his divorce from their mother.
2. If those provisions were revoked, whether Ronald’s estate would pass by intestate succession to his siblings despite the existing will and trust.

## Decision

- The Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed the superior court’s summary judgment.
- The court held A.R.S. § 14-2804 did not revoke the will and trust provisions benefiting Krista Jones and Douglas Olson under the circumstances presented.
- Krista and Douglas remained the designated beneficiaries and fiduciaries, and Ronald’s estate did not pass to his siblings by intestacy.

## Legal Principles

- Courts interpret a revocation-on-divorce statute primarily from its text and apply it as written rather than extending it by implication.
- A.R.S. § 14-2804 can revoke, upon divorce, certain dispositions and fiduciary appointments made in favor of a former spouse and, in some circumstances, in favor of the former spouse’s relatives.
- For step-relations, the key question is whether the relevant relationship by affinity is treated as ending automatically at divorce or whether it may continue after divorce based on the facts.
- Where the record supports that the decedent continued a meaningful parent-child relationship with former stepchildren after divorce and did not revise estate-planning documents that name them, the statute does not operate to nullify those provisions and force intestacy.
- Summary judgment is proper in a probate dispute when there is no genuine dispute of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the statute’s application.

## Conclusion

Podgorski v. Jones holds that Arizona’s revocation-on-divorce statute did not cancel a decedent’s will and trust provisions naming former stepchildren as beneficiaries and fiduciaries where the decedent maintained an ongoing relationship with them after divorcing their parent; the court therefore left the estate plan in place and rejected the siblings’ claim that the estate must pass by intestate succession.


Podgorski v. Jones, 471 P.3d 693 (2020)