Background
Aaron Stewart is a beneficiary of the Lynda Stewart Trust, for which Arizona Bank & Trust serves as co-trustee. In October 2024, the Bank petitioned the superior court to approve a final accounting and distribute the Trust’s remaining assets. After Stewart’s last known attorney of record did not respond to an inquiry about whether he still represented Stewart, the Bank mailed the petition and hearing notice by certified mail to Stewart’s last known address.
Stewart did not appear at the December 2024 hearing. After finding that all parties had notice, the superior court approved the accounting, authorized final distributions, discharged the Bank from liability, and closed the Trust. Stewart received the papers two weeks after the hearing but waited another five months before moving under Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1), (4), and (6) to set aside the judgment. The superior court denied the motion, finding that Stewart had actual notice of the proceeding and that his former attorney no longer represented him.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed. The judgment was not void for lack of jurisdiction or defective service because Stewart submitted to Arizona courts’ personal jurisdiction when he accepted his first Trust distribution. His former attorney had not represented him since 2013, and the Bank properly mailed the petition and notice to Stewart’s last known address more than 14 days before the hearing. Due process did not require actual receipt, only notice reasonably calculated to reach him. Although one accompanying letter misstated the hearing date, the notice sent with the petition gave the correct date.
Stewart also failed to establish excusable neglect because he offered no explanation for waiting five months after receiving the papers to seek relief. His failure to check mail sent to the address he had provided amounted to carelessness or unexplained neglect, not conduct a reasonably prudent person might have engaged in under the circumstances. Rule 60(b)(6) likewise offered no relief because Stewart merely repeated his rejected notice and service arguments rather than showing a distinct, extraordinary hardship or injustice.
The appeal from the denial of Rule 60 relief did not permit review of whether the accounting was accurate or whether the superior court correctly relieved the Bank of its trustee duties because Stewart had not appealed the underlying order. The appellate court granted the Bank its attorney fees under A.R.S. § 14-11004 and awarded taxable costs subject to compliance with ARCAP 21.
Key Takeaways
- A trust beneficiary who accepts a distribution submits to Arizona courts’ personal jurisdiction for matters involving the trust.
- Due process requires notice reasonably calculated to reach an interested party, not proof that the party actually received notice before the hearing.
- An unexplained five-month delay defeated the beneficiary’s excusable-neglect claim, and an appeal from denial of Rule 60 relief could not reopen the merits of the unappealed underlying order.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the limited scope of post-judgment relief in Arizona trust proceedings. Mailing timely notice to a beneficiary’s last known address may satisfy statutory and constitutional requirements even when the beneficiary does not receive the papers until after the hearing, particularly when former counsel no longer represents the beneficiary.
It also underscores that parties seeking Rule 60 relief must act promptly and must appeal an underlying order if they want appellate review of its substantive merits. The memorandum decision is not precedential and may be cited only as authorized by Arizona Supreme Court Rule 111(c).