BELSANTI v. KUTAK ROCK

── BELSANTI v. KUTAK ROCK ── Case No.: 1 CA-CV 25-0154 Court: Court of Appeals of Arizona Date: March 20, 2026 Category: General NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE. IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE REGINA HELENE BELSANTI, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. KUTAK ROCK, LLP, et al., Defendants/Appellees. No. 1 CA-CV 25-0154 FILED 03-20-2026 Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CV2023-006738 The Honorable Jennifer C. Ryan-Touhill, Judge VACATED AND REMANDED COUNSEL Hovore Law PLLC, Scottsdale By F. Thomas Hovore, Anne L. Thompson Co-Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellant Robert G. Schaffer PLC, Scottsdale By Robert G. Schaffer Co-Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellant Stinson LLP, Phoenix By Jeffrey J. Goulder, James Camoriano, Michael Vincent Counsel for Defendants/Appellees  BELSANTI v. KUTAK ROCK, et al. Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Judge Michael S. Catlett delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge D. Steven Williams and Judge Andrew M. Jacobs joined. C A T L E T T, Judge: ¶1 Regina Belsanti (“Belsanti”) appeals the superior court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Kutak Rock, LLP (“Kutak”) and one of its former attorneys, Michael Sillyman (“Sillyman”) (collectively, “Defendants”). The court concluded her claims are barred under the applicable statute of limitations, basing that decision partially on privileged communications the court ordered her to disclose. ¶2 Belsanti’s legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty claims are based on advice—allegedly negligent—she claims Sillyman gave her in 2007 regarding a premarital agreement (“PMA”) she then entered with her then-fiancé, now-ex-husband Gary McCracken (“McCracken”). ¶3 Because the court erred in granting discovery about Belsanti’s privileged communications with her prior divorce counsel, and because her claims did not accrue outside the limitations period, we vacate the judgment and remand for further proceedings. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶4 We review a decision granting summary judgment for Defendants, so we describe the facts in the light most favorable to Belsanti, the non-moving party. See Gipson v. Kasey, 214 Ariz. 141, 142 ¶ 2 (2007). ¶5 Before marrying McCracken in March 2007, Belsanti retained Kutak and Sillyman, who advised her on the terms of the PMA, including how it would impact her marital community’s interest in McCraken’s dermatology practice. During the marriage, McCracken grew that practice from one office to nine—he then sold the practice in 2018 for millions of dollars. Those who purchased the practice required Belsanti to sign a spousal disclaimer of all ownership interest in the practice. ¶6 McCracken filed for divorce in May 2021. Belsanti retained Dickinson Wright (“Dickinson”) to represent her in the divorce proceedings. During those proceedings, Belsanti contested the PMA’s 2  BELSANTI v. KUTAK ROCK, et al. Decision of the Court validity. The superior court at first found the PMA unenforceable. But after McCracken moved for reconsideration, the court granted partial summary judgment for McCracken, concluding the PMA was enforceable. A little over a year later, Belsanti and McCracken settled their disputes, and the court entered a consent decree of dissolution. The decree categorized the entire medical practice as McCracken’s separate property. ¶7 On May 2, 2023, Belsanti brought this legal malpra