By Kent Berk on January 26th, 2026 in LITIGATION, Probate, PROBATE LITIGATION
The Arizona Court of Appeals recently issued an important opinion addressing when attorneys’ fees may—and may not—be awarded in trust litigation. The case, Krishnan v. Krishnan, offers valuable clarification for trustees, beneficiaries, and the attorneys who advise them, particularly on the interpretation of A.R.S. § 14‑1105(A).
The holding is straightforward but significant: Only a decedent’s estate or trust may recover fees under § 14‑1105(A). Individual beneficiaries cannot.
Below is a breakdown of the case and why it matters for Arizona probate practitioners.
Background: A Family Trust Dispute Spanning More Than a Decade
Aiylam and Saranya Krishnan created a family living trust in 2011, naming their son, Venkatesh, as successor trustee and initially designating two children as beneficiaries. Years later, the surviving grantor amended the trust to add two more children as equal-share beneficiaries.
After Saranya’s death, disputes emerged regarding:
- Venkatesh’s administration of the trust
- Management of trust assets
- Timing and adequacy of distributions
- Requests for documentation and accounting
Two of the siblings, Sundar and Suchitra, filed a petition seeking Venkatesh’s removal and other remedies, including statutory surcharges and attorneys’ fees.
But in 2023, faced with evidentiary difficulties and personal circumstances, they voluntarily sought to withdraw their claims. The superior court allowed the withdrawal and directed Venkatesh to continue administration.
The Fee Fight: Beneficiaries Seek Fees After Dismissal
After the case was dismissed with prejudice, all parties submitted fee applications—even though neither side had prevailed on any substantive claims.
The superior court awarded:
- $16,000 in fees to Sundar
- $25,000 in fees to Suchitra
The court based its award solely on A.R.S. § 14‑1105(A), finding that Venkatesh’s conduct had “unreasonably expanded the litigation.” Venkatesh appealed.
The Court of Appeals Reverses: Beneficiaries Are Not Entitled to Fees as a Matter of Law
The Court of Appeals vacated the fee award, holding:
1. § 14‑1105(A) only authorizes fee awards to a decedent’s estate or trust — not beneficiaries.
The statute provides that when a trust or estate incurs professional fees because of someone’s unreasonable conduct, the court may order that person to reimburse the estate or trust.
Nothing in the statute allows:
- an individual beneficiary
- a group of beneficiaries
- an interested party
to recover fees directly.
Thus, the superior court exceeded its statutory authority.
2. Notice of the fee claim was sufficient — but irrelevant.
The appellants argued they lacked proper notice. The Court disagreed: the beneficiaries had pleaded a statutory basis for fees early in the case. However, even with proper notice, the statute simply didn’t allow the award.
Key Practice Takeaways for Probate and Trust Attorneys
1. Fee exposure under § 14‑1105(A) is limited to reimbursement to the trust or estate.
If beneficiaries want fee-shifting, they should rely on other potential statutes or doctrines (e.g., A.R.S. § 12‑349, common fund doctrine), but § 14‑1105(A) is not available to them.
2. Trustees should object promptly when beneficiaries seek fees under inapplicable authority.
This case reinforces the importance of challenging unsupported fee claims early.
3. Courts cannot use § 14‑1105(A) as a punitive mechanism directly benefiting individual beneficiaries.
Even if the trustee acted unreasonably, the statute authorizes compensation to the trust, not to individuals.
4. This decision will impact strategic decisions around voluntary dismissal.
Beneficiaries who dismiss claims mid‑litigation cannot expect to shift their legal fees to the trustee via § 14‑1105(A).
5. Appeals remain a viable route when probate courts misapply fee‑shifting statutes.
Here, appellate intervention corrected both the statutory interpretation and the resulting financial award.
Why This Case Matters
Trust and estate litigation often involves significant attorneys’ fees, and fee-shifting arguments can dramatically influence strategy.
For Arizona practitioners, Krishnan clarifies boundaries that probate courts must follow:
- Fee awards must strictly track statutory authority
- Probate courts cannot expand § 14‑1105(A)
- Beneficiaries must identify alternative statutory or contractual bases to recover fees
This decision reinforces the principle that probate litigation is governed by strict statutory limits, and courts cannot stretch fee‑shifting statutes beyond their plain language.
Need Guidance Handling Attorneys’ Fees Issues in Trust Litigation?
Our firm advises trustees, beneficiaries, and personal representatives in complex probate disputes, including:
- Trustee removal and defense
- Breach of fiduciary duty claims
- Accounting disputes
- Fee-shifting strategy and appellate review
If you have questions about how this new ruling might affect an active or anticipated trust dispute, we’re here to help. Contact us today!
