Garbareno v. Whatley (In re Estate of Snure)

16 Citing cases

  1. In re $46,523 in U.S. Currency

    418 P.3d 1124 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018)

    We also review constitutional claims de novo. In re Estate of Snure , 234 Ariz. 203, ¶ 5, 320 P.3d 316 (App. 2014). ¶8 Before the state may deprive an individual of life, liberty, or property it must accord due process. U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1. Essential to due process is notice and an opportunity to be heard.

  2. Accelerated Receivable Solutions v. Hauf

    2015 WY 71 (Wyo. 2015)   Cited 6 times

    We also find support for this result in a similar case recently decided by the Arizona Court of Appeals. See In re Estate of Snure, 234 Ariz. 203, ¶¶ 12–13, 320 P.3d 316, 319 (Ariz.Ct.App.2014).[¶ 43] In Snure, as in this case, an estate sent notice of a claim disallowance via certified mail and that mailing was returned unclaimed.

  3. Bozrah Builders Inc. v. Ariz. Registrar Contractors

    No. 1 CA-CV 13-0442 (Ariz. Ct. App. Jul. 30, 2015)

    In both Jones and this court's opinion in In re Estate of Snure, the constitutionally sufficient procedure used to give notice was determined to be deficient when the notice was returned to the sender unclaimed. See Jones, 547 U.S. at 226; In re Estate of Snure, 234 Ariz. 203, 205, ¶ 10 (App. 2014). Jones and Snure explained that the "means employed must be such as one desirous of actually informing the absentee might reasonably adopt to accomplish it." Snure, 234 Ariz. at 205, ¶ 8 (quoting Jones, 547 U.S. at 229).

  4. Heguy v. Stephens (In re Stephens Revocable Tr.)

    249 Ariz. 523 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2020)   Cited 4 times

    P. 4 ("The Civil Rules apply to probate proceedings unless they are inconsistent with these probate rules or ... Title 14."); cf. In re Estate of Snure , 234 Ariz. 203, ¶¶ 4, 14, 320 P.3d 316 (App. 2014) (party may file Rule 12(b) motion to dismiss claim in probate proceeding); In re Sherer's Estate , 10 Ariz. App. 31, 37, 455 P.2d 480, 486 (1969) ( Rule 56 summary judgment motion may be properly granted in probate matter). This procedure allows a statutorily proper petitioner to bring actions to protect vulnerable adults, yet still preserves the ability, early in the process, to challenge a baseless or flawed complaint.

  5. Yarborough v. Graziano (In re Estate of May)

    No. 1 CA-CV 15-0563 (Ariz. Ct. App. Nov. 1, 2016)

    ¶8 This court reviews de novo an order granting a motion to dismiss, assuming the truth of all facts stated in the pleading. Premier Physicians Grp., PLLC v. Navarro, 240 Ariz. 193, 194, ¶ 6, 377 P.3d 988, 989 (2016); In re Estate of Snure, 234 Ariz. 203, 204, ¶ 2, 320 P.3d 316, 317 (App. 2014). ¶9 Yarborough filed the 2009 Will in April 2014, which was "conclusive as to all persons until superseded by an order in a formal testacy proceeding."

  6. Barker v. Barker

    No. 2 CA-CV 2015-0178 (Ariz. Ct. App. Mar. 25, 2016)

    "We review this constitutional claim de novo." In re Estate of Snure, 234 Ariz. 203, ¶ 5, 320 P.3d 316, 317 (App. 2014). ¶5 Thomas appears to argue he lacked notice because the factual allegations listed on the petition for order of protection did not include any reference to guns, and because his wife testified at the hearing that she would not have made a request about the firearms if a court clerk had not suggested it.

  7. Fisher v. Edgerton

    236 Ariz. 71 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014)   Cited 15 times

    We also review constitutional issues de novo. In re Estate of Snure, 234 Ariz. 203, 204, ¶ 5, 320 P.3d 316, 317 (App.2014). We presume Arizona statutes and rules are constitutional unless the plaintiff can rebut that presumption beyond a reasonable doubt.

  8. Lopez v. Williams

    1 CA-CV 24-0230 FC (Ariz. Ct. App. Dec. 19, 2024)

    We review constitutional claims de novo. In re Estate of Snure, 234 Ariz. 203, 204, ¶ 5 (App. 2014); see Wassef v. Ariz. State Bd. of Dental Exam'rs, 242 Ariz. 90, 93, ¶ 11 (App. 2017) (alleged due process violations are reviewed de novo).

  9. Vista Del Corazon Homeowners Ass'n v. Smith

    2 CA-CV 2023-0071 (Ariz. Ct. App. Mar. 8, 2024)   Cited 1 times

    We can determine the reasonable foreseeability, and thus enforceability, of amendments de novo. See id. ¶¶ 8-9, 18 (conducting de novo review of amendments' validity); cf. In re Estate of Snure, 234 Ariz. 203, ¶¶ 5-7 (App. 2014) (question of adequate notice reviewed de novo). B. Reasonable Foreseeability

  10. JP Morgan Chase Bank v. Adams (In re Joan Lynn Morrison Tr. Under Article 9)

    No. 1 CA-CV 19-0712 (Ariz. Ct. App. Jan. 12, 2021)

    This court reviews constitutional claims de novo. In re Estate of Snure, 234 Ariz. 203, 204, ¶ 5 (App. 2014). We also review de novo claims that an underlying judgment is void and should be set aside pursuant Rule 60(b)(4).