Intervention issues don’t arise often in Arizona probate Court. Nichols v. Slavicek, No. 1 CA-CV 25-0272 PB (Ariz. App. May 4, 2026) (mem. decision), is a sharp reminder that the rules apply and probate courts cannot quietly sideline a surviving parent from cases involving her own minor children. Even in an unusual procedural posture, and even when a guardian ad litem and a law firm say they have things under control. Division One vacated the superior court’s denial of a mother’s motion to intervene, holding that her constitutional and statutory parental rights, combined with the liberal construction of Arizona Rule
Latest Post
More Posts
Announcing the Berk Law Group AI Client Tipsheet: How to Use AI Safely When You’re in a Probate or Trust Dispute
Why the Court Can’t Rubber-Stamp a Guardian’s Decision: Lessons from Gouveia v. Gruler
April 2026 Maricopa County Probate Bench Bar Meeting
Join our Team: Hiring a Legal Operations Director
A Milestone That’s No Joke! 30 Years of Advocacy, Trust, and Gratitude
Berk Law Group Launches Free Arizona Probate & Elder Law Tools
When a “Contempt Fine” Becomes a Problem: Isom v. Isom and What Probate Litigators Should Take From It
Arizona Appeals Court: You Can’t “ADR Away” an Undue Influence Challenge to a Trust Amendment
Camera Optional, Attention Required: Rethinking How Lawyers Learn Together
The Case for Dogs in the Office: Why a Pet-Friendly Workplace Just Makes Sense
Arizona Court of Appeals Clarifies: Trust Beneficiaries Cannot Recover Attorneys’ Fees Under A.R.S. § 14‑1105(A)
No-Contest Clauses Don’t Automatically Trigger: Key Takeaways from Champagne v. Bozer
Goudeau v. Goudeau: Arizona Court Rejects Invalid Will in Probate Appeal
October 14, 2025 Maricopa County Probate Bench Bar Meeting
Subscribe: Subscribe via RSS
Blogs
Firm/Org
