NICHOLS v. SLAVICEK

── NICHOLS v. SLAVICEK ── Court: Court of Appeals of Arizona Date: May 04, 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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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 In the Matter of the Conservatorship for: H.N., N.N., M.N., Minors. __________________ SVETLANA NICHOLS, Petitioner/Appellant, v. H.N., N.N., M.N., and THE SLAVICEK LAW FIRM, Respondents/Appellees.1 No. 1 CA-CV 25-0272 PB FILED 05-04-2026 Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County Nos. PB2023-001920, PB2024-090970, PB2024-090971, PB2024-090976 The Honorable Lisa Ann Vandenberg, Judge, Retired VACATED AND REMANDED 1 We amend the caption in this matter as shown above.  NICHOLS v. SLAVICEK, et al. Decision of the Court COUNSEL Pangerl Law Firm, P.L.L.C., Phoenix Regina M. Pangerl Counsel for Petitioner/Appellant Wilson Law Firm, Tempe Mark A. Wilson Counsel for Respondent/Appellee The Slavicek Law Firm Gammage & Burnham, P.L.C., Phoenix Cameron C. Artigue, Jacqueline E. Marzocca Counsel for Respondent/Appellee The Slavicek Law Firm MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge Michael J. Brown delivered the decision of the Court, in which Judge Veronika Fabian and Vice Chief Judge David D. Weinzweig joined. B R O W N, Judge: ¶1 Svetlana Nichols (“Mother”) appeals the superior court’s denial of her motion to intervene in a consolidated probate case concerning her minor children and her deceased former husband. Because Mother should have been permitted to intervene, we vacate the court’s ruling and remand for further proceedings. BACKGROUND ¶2 Mother and Zachary Nichols (“Father”) share three minor children. In their 2017 divorce proceeding, the parents stipulated to joint legal decision-making authority. ¶3 In 2020, Mother and the children were in a car accident, resulting in injuries to each of the children. Two years later, Father sued Mother on behalf of the children, alleging she negligently caused the car accident by failing to control her speed and by driving while intoxicated. He retained Slavicek Law Firm (“Firm”) to represent him. Mother objected to a medical examination of one of the children that Father sought during the litigation. Father then petitioned the probate department of the superior court to appoint him as conservator for the children so he could 2  NICHOLS v. SLAVICEK, et al. Decision of the Court manage the litigation. The court denied the petition “at this time,” finding that Father had not used the available discovery mechanisms to obtain the medical examination in the civil case. ¶4 Less than a year later, Father died unexpectedly. Mother filed three probate petitions—one for each child—to appoint her brother as conservator so he could “compromise a settlement” on behalf of the children in the civil lawsuit. A few weeks later, the Firm petitioned to appoint a guardian ad litem (“GAL”) in Father’s original (but dormant) probate case. The Firm asserted it “represents the minor children in connection with” their tort claims, “having been hired by the minors’ father.” ¶5 At the initial hearing, the superior court consolidated the four pending probate cases. Then, under A.R.S. § 14-1408 and on its own motion, the c