SMITH v. OLSEN

── SMITH v. OLSEN ── Court: Court of Appeals of Arizona Date: April 08, 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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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 MELISSA SMITH, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. MORGAN R. OLSEN, et al., Defendants/Appellees. No. 1 CA-CV 25-0572 FILED 04-08-2026 Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CV2022-052105 The Honorable Dewain D. Fox, Judge AFFIRMED IN PART; VACATED IN PART COUNSEL Michael P. Fiflis, Scottsdale Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellant Papetti Samuels Weiss McKirgan LLP, Scottsdale By Robert McKirgan, Jennifer Lee-Cota, Heather Robles, Lawrence Kasten Counsel for Defendants/Appellees MEMORANDUM DECISION Judge Jennifer M. Perkins delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Michael S. Catlett and Judge Angela K. Paton joined.  SMITH v. OLSEN, et al. Decision of the Court P E R K I N S, Judge: ¶1 Melissa Smith appeals from the superior court’s entry of summary judgment and from an award of attorney fees in favor of Morgan and Beth Olsen (collectively “Morgan”). For the following reasons, we affirm the entry of summary judgment and vacate the attorney fee award. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ¶2 The current case arises from Smith’s efforts to recover on a judgment she obtained against Blair Olsen (“Blair”) in a separate case. Blair is Morgan’s brother. In that case, Smith sued Blair in June 2017 for breach of an easement and other claims. In 2022, Smith obtained a $3,000,000 judgment against Blair, which this Court reduced to $2,115,367 on appeal. Smith v. Olsen, 257 Ariz. 518, 625, ¶ 61 (App. 2024). Smith then initiated a fraudulent transfer suit against both Blair and Morgan, seeking to recover assets that Blair inherited from their father (“Father”). The fraudulent transfer claims are based on the following facts. A. The Will ¶3 Father died in 2015. His estate contained properties in Mohave County (“Mohave Property”), properties in Maricopa County (“Maricopa Property”), two properties in North Dakota (“Bismarck House” and “Judy Jo Ranch”), and other non-real estate assets. Father’s will (“the Will”) appointed Morgan as personal representative, devised the Judy Jo Ranch to Blair, and devised the remainder of the estate to Blair and Morgan in equal shares. B. The Family Settlement Agreement ¶4 In December 2018, before the estate had been distributed, Morgan and Blair entered into the Family Settlement Agreement (“FSA”) agreeing to rearrange how the estate would be distributed. They stipulated to each estate asset’s value at the time of Father’s death as follows: • Mohave Property: $29,712 • Maricopa Property: $353,360 • Judy Jo Ranch: $164,500 • Bismarck House: $198,200 2  SMITH v. OLSEN, et al. Decision of the Court • Non-real estate assets: $513,882 Based on those valuations, Blair’s inheritance was worth $712,077, and Morgan’s was worth $547,577. ¶5 Blair agreed to “release any claim he ha[d]” to the Bismarck House and the Judy Jo Ranch and transfer them to Morgan. In exchange, Morgan agreed to “release any claim he ha[d]” to the Maricopa Property and transfer it to Blair along with $86,920 of the non-real estate assets. In terms of value, Morgan received Blair’s one-half interest in the Bismarck H