Losacker v. Welle

── Losacker v. Welle ── Court: Court of Appeals of Arizona Date: May 21, 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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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 CARLOYN KLARE ZURWELLE LIVING TRUST _______________________________ CLAIRE LOSACKER, Petitioner/Appellee, v. LENORE ZUR WELLE, Respondent/Appellant. No. 1 CA-CV 25-0713 PB FILED 05-21-2026 Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. PB2024-090157 The Honorable Joshua Yost, Judge Pro Tem AFFIRMED COUNSEL Claire Losacker, Gilbert Petitioner/Appellee Lenore Zur Welle, Vista Respondent/Appellant  LOSACKER v. WELLE Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge Andrew M. Jacobs delivered the decision of the Court, in which Judge Brian Y. Furuya and Judge James B. Morse Jr. joined. J A C O B S, Judge: ¶1 In this probate dispute, Lenore Zur Welle appeals the superior court’s order granting Claire Losacker summary judgment as to disputes over Claire’s administration of their mother’s living trust. Because the record supports the superior court’s distribution of the Trust’s assets, and does not support Lenore’s claim she was not served with Claire’s motion for summary judgment, we affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 In 2008, Carolyn Klare Zur Welle (“Mother”) created the Living Trust (“the Trust”) in Arizona. Under the terms of the Trust, Mother’s three daughters Lenore, Claire, and Winkie Schwartz were beneficiaries. The Trust names Claire as its trustee. ¶3 In 2017, Mother moved with Lenore to an assisted living facility in California, where she remained until her death in 2021. After Mother’s death, Claire acted as the trustee. She retained law firms in California and Arizona to help her administer Mother’s estate: Tresp Law, Berk Law, and Taylor Trust Law. ¶4 To administer Mother’s estate, Claire collected assets, closed accounts, filed taxes, and prepared an accounting of the estate. During this period, disputes arose between Claire and Lenore regarding Lenore’s debt to the Trust. With those disputes unresolved, Claire petitioned the superior court in June 2024 to approve a final accounting and distribution. ¶5 Critical here, Claire’s petition alleged that Lenore owed the Trust $17,724.32, consisting of: (1) $15,000 characterized as an advance on her inheritance; (2) four $500 checks allegedly treated as advances; and (3) $724.32 in unauthorized debit card charges. Lenore objected to the final accounting. She acknowledged borrowing the $15,000 but argued that $5,000 should be restored to her share. Lenore also disputed the characterization of the four $500 checks as debts. Finally, Lenore challenged the reasonableness and transparency of the fees of the estate’s counsel. 2  LOSACKER v. WELLE Decision of the Court ¶6 Claire and Lenore conferred repeatedly but couldn’t resolve their disputes. Claire moved for summary judgment, seeking resolution of the debt issues, approval of the accounting, and authorization to proceed with the final distribution. Claire’s motion attached evidence, including communications with Lenore, accounting summaries, attorney billing records, and an email in which Lenore described the four $500 checks as borrowed funds. Her motion included a certificate of service, sta