Podgorski v. Jones
Arizona Court of Appeals
471 P.3d 693 (2020)
- Written by Jamie Milne, JD
Facts
When Ronald Podgorski married Patricia Podgorski, Patricia had two children from a previous relationship, Krista Jones (defendant) and Douglas Olson. Ronald executed a will naming Krista and Douglas as co-personal representatives of his estate and leaving his assets to a trust with Krista and Douglas as the beneficiaries. Ronald and Patricia eventually divorced, but Ronald maintained an ongoing relationship with his then adult stepchildren. Ronald did not alter his will. After Ronald died, Krista submitted his will for probate and was appointed as the personal representative. Ronald’s siblings, Raymond Podgorski and Barbara Fischer (plaintiffs) petitioned to remove Krista as representative and also argued that under Arizona law, Ronald’s divorce from Patricia automatically revoked any dispositions and nominations Ronald previously made in favor of Patricia’s children. Consequently, Raymond and Barbara asserted that Ronald’s estate should pass by intestate succession to his statutory heirs. Krista countered that the intended distributions and nominations remained valid because Ronald maintained an ongoing relationship with Krista and Douglas after the divorce. The superior court granted summary judgment in Krista’s favor. Raymond and Barbara appealed to the Arizona Court of Appeals.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Williams, 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.
