Matter of Estate of Krokowsky

3 Citing cases

  1. Matter of Estate of Krokowsky

    182 Ariz. 277 (Ariz. 1995)   Cited 8 times

    The court of appeals affirmed in a published opinion. Matter of Estate of Krokowsky, 180 Ariz. 190, 883 P.2d 427 (App. 1993). That court went further than Judge Rozar and held that the will gave Brown a general power of appointment over the entire estate.

  2. Lanham v. Fleenor

    164 Idaho 355 (Idaho 2018)   Cited 4 times

    Originally, the Arizona Court of Appeals in its decision found that the phrase "power of attorney" was a lay person's attempt to create a general power of appointment. In re Estate of Krokowsky , 180 Ariz. 190, 194, 883 P.2d 427, 431 (Ct. App. 1993), vacated, 182 Ariz. 277, 896 P.2d 247 (1995). However, using the test announced above, the Arizona Supreme Court found that the will failed to establish the first and third components: the testator's intent to create the general power and to specify the property subject to the general power.

  3. Wetherill v. Basham

    197 Ariz. 198 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2000)   Cited 26 times
    Envisioning "no benefit and much potential mischief from imposing on attorneys a duty to exercise reasonable care to nonclient third parties whose interests are directly adverse to those of the attorney's client"

    Only Wissler challenges that ruling on appeal, contending that Renee had authority as her husband's conservator to alter the terms of their trust by amendment. The only case on which Wissler relies, In re Estate of Krokowsky, 180 Ariz. 190, 883 P.2d 427 (App. 1993), was vacated. In re Estate of Krokowsky, 182 Ariz. 277, 896 P.2d 247 (1995).