4 • JULY 2011 Arnold vs. Sarn and the Electronic Record on Appeal


Arnold vs. Sarn and other Historically Significant Cases The Clerk’s Corner in the May edition of


the Maricopa Lawyer discussed historically sig- nificant cases that have touched the Superior Court in Maricopa County in one way or another. Parties, attorneys, judicial officers and others were encouraged to designate qual- ifying cases for this designation. The process and forms are readily available and the brief time it takes to file the motion potentially preserves the case for all time.


Among the cases listed as examples was this description: “Public Fiduciary v. Arizona State Hospital (Sarns case/mental health), which began as a class action in 1981 and continues today.” Fortunately, this cursory write-up caught the attention of Charles Arnold, the “Arnold” in Arnold vs. Sarns, as the case is nationally and inter- nationally known by the legal and non-legal community. Arnold (“Chick” when engaged informally) was willing to share his insight into the case and its far-reaching effects and agreed to have his comments published in this edition of the Maricopa Lawyer. The value in designating a case as his- torically significant is that the case remains available to educate and put the legal and social environment in context. Even more valuable is designating cases while the players are still available and


passionate about their insight.


The Electronic Record on Appeal Expands In August of 2009 the Clerk’s Office


started a pilot with Division One of the Arizona Court of Appeals by providing the record on appeal electronically in one pro- bate case, followed by appeals in all family and probate court cases. General civil cases on appeal were added to the electronic appeals program in September of 2010, fol- lowed by all non-criminal appeals as of June 1, 2011. Based on the success of the initial pilot, the Clerk’s Office will begin to expand the electronic transmission of the record on appeal to the Court of Appeals, Division One for appeals related to the criminal case type. This fall the Clerk’s Office anticipates using the electronic record on appeal to transmit death penalty


One Woman, MCBA and State Bar Finally Get Death Statute for Vehicles Changed


By Mark Moritz Estate planning just got a little easier for


Arizonans. ARS § 28-2055 has been amended to permit designation of a “transfer on death” beneficiary without the previous requirement that the estate be “small” as defined in § 14- 3971 (net value of personal property not greater than $50,000).


28-2055. Certificate of title; content requirements; transfer on death provi- sion; delivery A. The department or an authorized third party shall print the certificate of title, and


it shall contain forms for assignment of title or interest and warranty by the owner, with space for notation of liens and encumbrances on the vehicle at the time of transfer. The certificate of title shall also contain the odometer mileage disclosure statement pursuant to section 28-2058. B. At the request of the owner and on pay- ment of a fee prescribed by the department by rule, the certificate of title may contain, by attachment, a transfer on death provi- sion where the owner may designate a ben- eficiary of the title. The attachment shall include a notice to the owner and any ben-


eficiary that the monetary limitation on the transfer of personal property in a decedent’s estate prescribed in section 14-3971 may apply. Now the statute is consistent with Arizona’s other statutes that permit non-probate alterna- tives for transferring property at death: Pay On Death/Transfer On Death titling for personal property, and Beneficiary Deeds for real prop- erty. A person has been able to name a POD/TOD beneficiary of a bank or invest- ment account with no limit on the value. A person has been able to record a Beneficiary Deed for real estate with no limit on value. If


cases and election challenges to the Arizona Supreme Court. To further enhance the electronic record on the criminal appeal cases, effective July 1, 2011, the Clerk’s Office will provide documents associated with the record on appeal, including the index, on a CD- ROM. Public defense agencies as well as private defense counsel will access the supe- rior court record on appeal through the CD-ROM. This method replaces the for- mer paper process and only applies to pub- lic and private attorneys representing a client whose criminal case is on appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County to the Court of Appeals, Division One. Access to public records will remain available from the Clerk’s public access ter- minals located around the valley as well as through the Electronic Court Record Online (ECR Online). 


a person could transfer a million dollars’ worth of investments or real estate probate-free, why should they not be able to transfer $51,000 worth of vehicles probate-free? How did the vehicle Transfer On Death statute get enacted in the first place? Why did it include the “small estate” language? How did it get fixed? Thanks for asking. It started with one lawyer, Kathie


Gummere, who said to herself, “My clients can arrange to leave their entire estates to their heirs with POD/TOD titling and Beneficiary Deeds, except for their vehicles. There should be a similar provision in the law so that heirs don’t have to go through the probate court just to be able to sell Dad’s RV when he dies.” In 2004, she approached then-Senator Bill


Brotherton (now a Maricopa County Superior Court judge), who agreed that it was a good idea, and sponsored the legislation in 2005. It did not pass. Gummere tried again in 2006, this time through attorney Jay Polk, who was working on proposed legislation on behalf of the Probate Section of the State Bar of Arizona. The idea never made it into the pro- posed legislation for that year. Gummere persisted. In 2008, she contact-


ed Sen. Ken Cheuvront. He recognized that it was a good thing for the people of Arizona, but his proposed legislation ran into resistance from the MVD, who seemed to be hung up on the “small estate” language they were famil- iar with from § 14-3971. Gummere (through Reps. Kirsten Sinema and Andy Biggs) explained to the MVD representatives that it was possible to leave a million dollar bank account via POD titling, but not a $51,000 vehicle. They were not persuaded. As a com- promise, Rep. Biggs added the “small estate” language. That appeased the MVD, but didn’t help the people who were forced to hire pro- bate lawyers and go through Probate Court proceedings because Mom’s minivan pushed her estate over the § 14-3971 limit. Then, the Maricopa County Bar Association’s Estate Planning, Probate & Trust Section got involved. Norm Miller and I cor- responded with Rep. Biggs, and met with some people from the MVD, but at that time,


See One Woman,MCBA and State Bar page 10


MARICOPA LAWYER


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16