Kuerschner v. Kuerschner

── Kuerschner v. Kuerschner ── Court: Court of Appeals of Arizona Date: May 07, 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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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 STEFANIE KUERSCHNER, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. JAMES T. KUERSCHNER, as Trustee of the Joan F. Kuerschner Irrevocable Trust, Defendant/Appellee.1 No. 1 CA-CV 25-0871 FILED 05-07-2026 Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CV2024-019544 The Honorable Adam D. Driggs, Judge AFFIRMED APPEARANCES Stefanie Kuerschner, Carefree Plaintiff/Appellant Evans Dukarich LLP, Tempe By Steven L. Evans, Gary Dukarich, Nicholas J. Kuntz, Michael Malin, Jeff Boshes Counsel for Defendant/Appellee 1 The caption has been amended to reflect the correct parties on appeal and shall be used for all future filings in this case.  KUERSCHNER v. KUERSCHNER Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Judge D. Steven Williams delivered the Court’s decision, in which Presiding Judge Daniel J. Kiley and Judge Cynthia J. Bailey joined. W I L L I A M S, Judge: ¶1 Stefanie Kuerschner appeals the superior court’s dismissal of her claim under A.R.S. § 33-420 and award of attorneys’ fees against her. For the following reasons, we affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ¶2 James Kuerschner is the trustee of the Joan F. Kuerschner Irrevocable Trust (“the Trust”). Thomas Kuerschner, James’s father, was also a trustee of the Trust before his death in 2021. Stefanie is Thomas’s widow.2 ¶3 As fully explained in Stefanie’s prior appeals, Thomas’s will excluded Stefanie from receiving any assets, but she maintained her community interest in the Scottsdale home they shared. In re Est. of Kuerschner, 1 CA-CV 25-0108, 2025 WL 2780806, at *1, ¶¶ 6–8 (Ariz. App. Sept. 30, 2025) (mem. decision). Stefanie filed several claims against Thomas’s estate (“the Probate case”), and the superior court rejected them following a trial. Id. at *3–4, ¶¶ 20–26. We affirmed that decision on appeal and ordered Stefanie to pay James’s (the personal representative of Thomas’s estate) appellate attorneys’ fees for pursuing meritless claims. Id. at *8, ¶¶ 50–51. We also warned Stefanie about providing incorrect citations in her written briefs and omitting record references. Id. at *5, ¶¶ 29–30. ¶4 After that appeal, Stefanie continued to litigate in the superior court several issues in the Probate case, resulting in sanctions against her. In re Est. of Kuerschner, 1 CA-CV 25-0491, 2026 WL 619894, at *1, ¶¶ 5–7 (Ariz. App. Mar. 5, 2026) (mem. decision). We dismissed her appeal of those sanction orders, and imposed additional sanctions against her for again providing incorrect citations and omitting record references. Id. at *2, ¶¶ 13–15. 2 Because parties share the same last name, we refer to them by their first names to avoid confusion. 2  KUERSCHNER v. KUERSCHNER Decision of the Court ¶5 In this case, Stefanie brought a claim under A.R.S. § 33-420 against James in his capacity as trustee of the Trust in April 2024, alleging that James had recorded an invalid promissory note in November 2020 creating “a cloud on title” to the Scottsdale home. 3 In May 2024, the superior court dismissed Stefanie’s claim with prejudice by stipulation of the parties. ¶6 In July 2024, Stefanie filed another claim under A.R.S. § 33-420 against James in his capacity as trustee based on the