Skip to main content
Skip to explanation
A.R.S. § 14-2712

Burden of Proof: Will or Trust Contests

Verified April 4, 202657th Legislature, 1st Regular Session

The law requires that a person who signs a will or trust is presumed to have testamentary capacity. They are also presumed to have acted free from undue influence. If someone challenges the document in a contest case, that person carries the burden of proving it is invalid. An automatic presumption of undue influence applies when a confidential adviser or document preparer is a principal beneficiary.

Title 14, INTESTATE SUCCESSION AND WILLS

azleg.gov

The Starting Point: Testamentary Capacity Is Presumed

The law requires courts to give significant weight to the decisions people make about their own property. When someone signs a will or trust, the law presumes they had testamentary capacity to do so. It also presumes nobody pressured them into it. A challenger in a contest case must overcome that presumption with real evidence.

It is a rebuttable presumption that a person who executes a governing instrument is presumed to have capacity to execute the governing instrument and to have done so free from undue influence and duress.

A.R.S. § 14-2712(B)

The proponent of the document, typically the person trying to enforce it, still has to show basic proof that the document was properly signed. But once that threshold is met, the burden shifts. Anyone who wants to invalidate the document must prove their contest case by a preponderance of the evidence.

When Undue Influence Is Presumed

The rules change when certain red flags are present. The law requires an automatic presumption of undue influence in two situations. First, when a person in a confidential relationship with the creator was actively involved in procuring the document and stands to benefit from it. Second, when the person who prepared the document (or their spouse, parents, or children) is a principal beneficiary.

A governing instrument is presumed to be the product of undue influence if either: 1. A person who had a confidential relationship to the creator of the governing instrument was active in procuring its creation and execution and is a principal beneficiary of the governing instrument.

A.R.S. § 14-2712(E)(1)

If someone challenges the product of undue influence, the beneficiary can still defend the document. They simply need to show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the creator acted voluntarily. This balance protects vulnerable people from exploitation while still allowing legitimate gifts to stand.

What Families Should Know About Contest Cases

In a contest case, the challenger faces an uphill climb. The law requires proof that the person lacked testamentary capacity or was subject to undue influence. Suspicion alone is not enough. Experienced law offices can help families understand whether a challenge has a realistic chance of success before committing time and money to litigation.

Proper estate planning reduces the risk of a contest case from the start. Clear documentation, independent witnesses, and professional guidance from qualified law offices all help demonstrate that the person who signed the document did so freely and with full understanding.

A. A proponent of a governing instrument has the burden of establishing prima facie proof of due execution in all cases. B. It is a rebuttable presumption that a person who executes a governing instrument is presumed to have capacity to execute the governing instrument and to have done so free from undue influence and duress. C. If the validity of a governing instrument is challenged on the grounds of revocation by a later governing instrument, the validity of the later governing instrument must be determined first. D. Except as prescribed pursuant to subsections E and F of this section, a party that challenges the validity of a governing instrument has the burden of establishing the invalidity of that governing instrument by a preponderance of the evidence. E. A governing instrument is presumed to be the product of undue influence if either: 1. A person who had a confidential relationship to the creator of the governing instrument was active in procuring its creation and execution and is a principal beneficiary of the governing instrument. 2. The preparer of the governing instrument or the preparer's spouse or parents or the issue of the preparer's spouse or parents is a principal beneficiary of the governing instrument. This paragraph does not apply if the governing instrument was prepared for a person who is a grandparent of the preparer, the issue of a grandparent of the preparer or the respective spouses or former spouses of persons related to the preparer. F. The beneficiary of the governing instrument may overcome a presumption of undue influence by a preponderance of the evidence. G. For the purposes of this section, determining if a person is a principal beneficiary of a governing instrument or the preparer of a governing instrument is a question of fact to be determined by the totality of the circumstances. H. This section does not apply to the following: 1. Proceedings to determine the validity of a durable power...

This page provides general legal information about Arizona statutes and is not legal advice. For guidance on how this law applies to your situation, speak with a qualified attorney.

Get Started Today

Need Help With Your Estate Plan?

Whether you are just getting started or reviewing an existing plan, RJP Estate Planning works hand in hand with experienced estate planning counsel to help you understand your options.

(480) 346-3570