Cited by

“[T]he intent of the [testator] is the overriding consideration, but the intent expressed in the will is controlling.”

¶ 18 (App. 2009) (appellate courts presume the trial court knows the law and applies it correctly); (“The .

¶ 17 (App. 2004) (this court considers an issue not raised in an appellant’s opening brief as abandoned or conceded), and has thus failed to rebut the presumption that the court properly reviewed for apportionment, ¶ 18 (App. 2009) (appellate courts presume the trial court knows the law and applies it correctly); (“The controlling law, as we see it, is that an appellate court must assume that the [trial] court did no wrong, in the absence of a showing to the contrary.”).

Id.; (“The controlling law, as we see it, is that an appellate court must assume that the [juvenile] court did no wrong, in the absence of a showing to the contrary.”).

¶6 “Although we presume that the trial court knows the law and applies the correct standard, that presumption may be rebutted by the record.” ¶ 18 (App. 2009) ( ¶ 32 (App. 2004); ).

(“We indulge the presumption always that the action of the trial court was regular and proper in the absence of a record controverting such presumption.”) (emphasis added); , (“The controlling law, as we see it, is that an appellate court must assume that the trial court did no wrong, in the absence of a showing to the contrary.”) (emphasis added).

¶48 In the present case, of course, we “assume that the trial court did no wrong, in the absence of a showing to the contrary.”

for the proposition that the language of the will controls the distribution of assets, even if the estate is insolvent.

for the proposition that the language of the will controls the distribution of assets, even if the estate is insolvent.

In re Armstrong’s Estate, 56 Cal.2d 796 , 17 Cal.Rptr.

See also Effland, Ariz. Probate Code Practice Manual, § 5.12(b) (Ariz.State Bar— 1973).