CLAXTON v. BROOKS

── CLAXTON v. BROOKS ── Court: Court of Appeals of Arizona Date: May 18, 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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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 Estate of: MARGARET C. CLAXTON, Deceased. __________________________ RICHARD WILLIAM CLAXTON, Petitioner/Appellant, v. MARY MARGARET BROOKS, et al., Respondents/Appellees. No. 1 CA-CV 25-0685 PB FILED 05-18-2026 Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. PB1997-001803 The Honorable Elizabeth T. Bingert, Judge Pro Tempore AFFIRMED APPEARANCES Richard William Claxton, Phoenix Petitioner/Appellant Dyer Bregman & Ferris, PLLC, Phoenix By Charles M. Dyer, Nathanael J. Scheer, Kyle H. Bycroft Counsel for Respondent/Appellee Mary Margaret Brooks  CLAXTON v. BROOKS, et al. Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge Michael J. Brown delivered the decision of the Court, in which Judge Veronika Fabian and Chief Judge Randall M. Howe joined. B R O W N, Judge: ¶1 Richard W. Claxton (“Claxton”) appeals the superior court’s order denying his motion to reopen Margaret C. Claxton’s (“Decedent”) probate, asserting Mary M. Brooks (“Brooks”) breached her fiduciary duty as personal representative of Decedent’s estate, committed fraud, and failed to conduct an estate accounting. For the following reasons, we affirm. BACKGROUND ¶2 Decedent executed her last will and testament in 1991, naming Brooks as personal representative and dividing her property among her four children, including $50,000 to Claxton to be held in trust by Brooks. The will authorized Brooks to distribute no more than $500 of trust net income to Claxton monthly, as directed by him, until the trust terminated. The trust was to terminate upon Claxton’s death or when the principal and interest were “used in full.” When Decedent died in 1997, the superior court granted Brooks’ petition for probate of the will and appointment as personal representative. At that time, Claxton was serving two life sentences in prison. ¶3 Brooks filed a closing statement in October 2022, effectively closing the probate. Brooks stated the final distribution of Claxton’s assets took place in July 2022 and the estate had no other assets. ¶4 Claxton moved to reopen the probate in July 2025, alleging Brooks breached her fiduciary duty by failing to: (1) open and fund an interest-bearing account for Claxton’s $50,000 bequest, (2) distribute the estate in accordance with the will, (3) timely close the probate proceedings, and (4) provide notice or an accounting to Claxton. Brooks responded, claiming Claxton’s motion was untimely. She also explained that she deposited $50,000 into an account (“Account”), and Claxton was aware of all transactions because he requested that Account funds be sent to prison, given to his girlfriend, or used to ship items to him. Brooks also asserted that the Account remained open until Claxton was able to obtain the 2  CLAXTON v. BROOKS, et al. Decision of the Court remaining funds and close the Account, which then allowed her to file the closing statement. ¶5 In denying the motion, the superior court construed Claxton’s motion as a claim that Brooks “breached her fiduciary duty in the administration of the [D]ecedent’s estate.” The court then explained: [T]he c