By Kent Berk on February 23rd, 2026 in PROBATE LITIGATION
Some trusts try to solve family conflict with a built-in off-ramp: appoint a “Special Co-Trustee,” require everyone to submit disputes to that person first, and allow mediation or even binding arbitration—with language saying the outcome is “binding” and “not subject to review.”
That system may work for many trustee/beneficiary disputes. But this opinion makes something clear: it doesn’t control when the real question is whether the amendment is valid at all because of undue influence.
What happened
Carol and James May created a living trust in 2003. In 2009, they added an ADR provision authorizing a “Special Co-Trustee” to resolve disputes and potentially submit them to mediation and/or binding arbitration, with a requirement that parties submit claims to the Special Co-Trustee before going to court.
In 2019, Carol signed a new amendment that removed certain children as beneficiaries and made a newly created foundation (a donor-advised fund of Legacy Global Foundation) the principal beneficiary. After Carol’s death, family members alleged the 2019 amendment was void because it was the product of undue influence.
A Special Co-Trustee was appointed to resolve the “validity/enforceability” dispute, and the trial court treated the matter as merely a dispute about distribution—sending it into the trust’s ADR process.
The legal issue (and the line the Court drew)
Arizona law allows a trust to require “mandatory, exclusive and reasonable procedures” for disputes about “the administration or distribution of the trust.” A.R.S. § 14-10205. The Court of Appeals held that a claim alleging a trust amendment is void due to undue influence is a validity challenge—not a mere administration/distribution dispute—and it is not governed by § 14-10205.
So the Court vacated the dismissal and remanded the case back to the superior court.
Why it matters to our practice (Arizona trust and estate litigation)
At Berk Law Group, many of our cases turn on two threshold questions:
- Is the document valid? (Undue influence, capacity, fraud, improper execution.)
- If it is valid, was it administered properly? (Trustee misconduct, accountings, distributions, fiduciary duties.)
This decision reinforces that validity fights belong in court, even if the trust includes aggressive ADR language aimed at keeping disputes out of the courthouse.
Berk Law Group is Here to Help
If you’re facing a trust dispute in Arizona involving undue influence, a sudden amendment, a beneficiary being cut out, or a trustee insisting the matter must be “handled privately” under an ADR clause, we can help you evaluate your options quickly and strategically—including whether the dispute should be in court and what evidence matters most early. Contact Berk Law Group to schedule a confidential consultation and get a clear plan for next steps.
May v. May (The James A. & Carol A. May Living Trust) — Division One, filed Feb. 17, 2026 (No. 1 CA-CV 25-0392 PB)
