In the Matter of The James A. and Carol A. May Living Trust

Citation: 2026 WL 444664 (Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1, Feb. 17, 2026), No. 1 CA-CV 25-0392 PB

Relevant Facts

• Carol and James May established the May Living Trust in 2003 as co-trustees.

• A 2009 Amendment designated children Shannon and Michael as successor co-trustees and named Shannon, Michael, and Erin as beneficiaries; a fourth child, Stephen, was excluded.

• The 2009 Amendment contained an ADR provision requiring disputes be submitted to a “Special Co-Trustee” for binding resolution.

• James died in 2017. In 2019, Carol executed a new amendment removing Michael, Shannon, and Erin as beneficiaries and naming the May Family Foundation (a donor-advised fund of Legacy Global Foundation) as principal beneficiary.

• Attorney Richard E. Durfee is Legacy’s founder and CEO.

• Carol died in 2021. Shannon challenged the 2019 Amendment as void due to Durfee’s alleged undue influence over Carol.

Legal Issues

Whether a challenge to the validity of a trust amendment based on undue influence is a dispute over “administration or distribution of the trust” subject to mandatory ADR under A.R.S. section 14-10205.

Positions of the Parties

Legacy: A.R.S. section 14-10205 does not permit trustors to require beneficiaries to submit validity challenges to binding ADR; validity challenges must be resolved in court.

Shannon: The ADR provision requires resolution of her challenge through the Special Co-Trustee process; argued for liberal construction of section 14-10205 and Arizona’s strong public policy favoring ADR.

Decision of the Court

VACATED AND REMANDED. The Court of Appeals held that a challenge to the validity of a trust amendment is NOT subject to mandatory ADR.

Reasons for the Decision

• The plain meaning of “administration” and “distribution” does not encompass questions about the validity of trust documents themselves.

• Both terms presuppose the validity of the trust documents.

• The Arizona Trust Code expressly distinguishes between “validity” and “administration” in section 14-10107(B).

• The parties (Shannon and Legacy) never agreed to submit validity disputes to binding ADR—only the trustors added the ADR provision.

• Contract law principles support this conclusion: claims that a contract was the product of undue influence are not within the scope of mandatory arbitration.

• Courts from other jurisdictions have recognized that disputes over trust validity cannot be determined by arbitration.