Estate of Kirkes
Arizona Court of Appeals
229 Ariz. 212, 273 P.3d 664 (2012)
- Written by Meredith Hamilton Alley, JD
Facts
Gail Kirkes (plaintiff) and Fred Kirkes were a married couple who resided in Arizona, a community-property jurisdiction. Fred opened an individual retirement account (IRA) in his name, designating Gail as the sole beneficiary. Fred funded the IRA with community funds, and thus it was a community asset. Later, Fred modified the IRA to designate Joshua Kirkes (defendant), his son from a previous marriage, as the beneficiary of 83 percent of the IRA and Gail as the beneficiary of 17 percent. In his will, Fred designated Gail as the sole beneficiary of his estate. Fred died, and Gail filed a petition for a declaration of rights, asking the court to invalidate Fred’s IRA beneficiary designation. Joshua opposed Gail’s petition for invalidation, and both Gail and Joshua filed motions for partial summary judgment. The trial court found that Fred intended for Joshua to receive 83 percent of the value of the IRA and for Gail to receive 17 percent. Nonetheless, the court denied Joshua’s motion and granted Gail’s motion, finding that Gail was entitled to half of the IRA as her share of the community property. Joshua appealed, arguing that the aggregate theory had been adopted in Arizona and that the trial court improperly applied the item theory to the division of the IRA.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Howard, C. J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
