By Kent Berk on October 23rd, 2025 in Estate Litigation, Probate, PROBATE LITIGATION, WILL CONTESTS, WILL VALIDITY
When families turn to the Arizona courts to resolve disputes over a loved one’s estate, procedure can be just as important as substance. The recent Arizona Court of Appeals decision in Goudeau v. Goudeau (1 CA-CV 24-0662 PB, Oct. 15, 2025) underscores that point. In affirming the lower court’s probate ruling, the appellate court reinforced the importance of properly finalizing judgments under Rule 54(c) and following every procedural step when appealing a probate or estate case. For anyone involved in an Arizona probate appeal or trust dispute, Goudeau serves as a cautionary tale—and a roadmap—for doing things right.
The case highlights the importance of strict compliance with Arizona’s statutory requirements for will execution and self-authentication, as well as the two-year limitation period for filing probate petitions under A.R.S. § 14-3108. It’s a valuable reminder that even sincere testamentary intent cannot substitute for proper formalities.
Background
Mary D. Warren passed away in December 2020. In 2023—nearly three years later—her daughter, Adrianne Goudeau, filed an application to probate what she described as Warren’s one-page handwritten will executed in 2016.
The document named another daughter, Leiza Goudeau, as personal representative and contained a “wish” that Warren’s home not be sold unless all children agreed. The document included a notary seal and two signatures—one labeled “witness”—but was missing key formal elements required by Arizona’s probate code.
The probate registrar denied the application as defective and untimely. Competing filings followed: Leiza sought to probate the same document, arguing that COVID-19 restrictions justified the late filing. The matter proceeded to trial in July 2024 before Judge Lisa Ann Vandenberg (retired).
Trial Court Findings
After testimony from family members and review of the document, the superior court found that:
-
The purported will was not self-authenticating under A.R.S. § 14-2504,
-
The will did not meet the requirements of a validly executed non-self authenticating will under A.R.S. § 14-2502, and
-
The evidence—including testimony from multiple relatives—failed to prove the document was actually signed by Warren or reflected her intent.
The court refused to admit the will, found that Warren died intestate, and appointed Adrianne Goudeau as personal representative to administer the estate, which primarily consisted of Warren’s residence.
Court of Appeals Decision
On appeal, Leiza argued that:
-
The will was valid and self-proved;
-
The trial court exceeded its statutory authority; and
-
The evidence failed to rebut the presumption of testamentary capacity.
The Court of Appeals rejected all arguments and affirmed the trial court’s rulings in full.
1. Will Was Not Self-Proved
The court held that the document lacked the acknowledgments and affidavits required by A.R.S. § 14-2504(A) for a self-proving will. It contained no sworn statements verifying that the signer was the decedent or that witnesses observed the signing. Without these formalities, the will could not be self-authenticating.
2. Will Was Not Validly Executed
Even aside from self-authentication, the document failed to meet the requirements for a valid will under A.R.S. § 14-2502(A)—specifically, signatures by two witnesses who either saw the testator sign or acknowledged the will. The notary did not testify, the witness signature was undated, and there was no evidence that both were present for the execution. The court distinguished In re Estate of Bradley (2018), where the notary personally witnessed the signing, which did not occur here.
3. Statutory Authority to Proceed
Although the probate petition was filed more than two years after death, the Court of Appeals held that an exception under A.R.S. § 14-3108(4) applied because no earlier probate proceeding had occurred. The superior court therefore retained authority to administer the estate under intestacy rules and to direct the sale of Warren’s home to distribute proceeds among the heirs.
4. No Error or Abuse of Discretion
The appellate panel emphasized that factual determinations and credibility assessments by the trial judge are entitled to deference. Because the record supported the findings, there was no reversible error.
Key Takeaways for Arizona Probate Practitioners and Families
-
Formality matters. Arizona requires strict compliance with statutory will-execution and self-authentication requirements. Even minor deviations—missing witness affidavits, incorrect notarization, or unclear signatures—can invalidate a will.
-
Notaries are not automatically witnesses. A notary can count as a witness only if they actually observe the testator and the other witness sign, and testify if challenged.
-
Late filings face limits—but exceptions exist. The two-year limitation in A.R.S. § 14-3108 bars most probate filings, but a court may still appoint a personal representative to confirm title or wind up an intestate estate if no prior proceedings were filed.
-
Appellate courts defer heavily to trial judges. Once the trial court makes credibility determinations, overturning those findings on appeal is difficult.
-
Estate planning precision prevents family disputes. Homemade or fill-in-the-blank wills often fail to meet statutory requirements. Proper legal drafting and witnessing avoid the risk of intestacy, family fighting and litigation.
Why This Case Matters
For Arizona families, Goudeau illustrates a common and costly problem: relying on informal or poorly executed wills. For attorneys, it’s a practical reminder to ensure self-proving affidavits and witness procedures comply fully with Arizona law. As the Court reiterated, “testamentary intent alone is not enough to make a will.” In probate law, precision is protection.
Conclusion
At Berk Law Group, we focus exclusively on probate, trust, and estate litigation and disputes throughout Arizona. Our experienced attorneys understand both the human and legal complexities of these matters. Whether you need to contest a will, defend an estate, or appeal a probate ruling, we can guide you through every stage with diligence, integrity, and skill.
If you believe a will or trust is invalid—or if you’re involved in a dispute over an Arizona estate—don’t wait. Call Berk Law Group at (480) 607-7900 or contact us online for a confidential consultation. We’ll help you understand your options, protect your interests, and pursue the outcome your loved one intended.
