Kuerschner v. Kuerschner

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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:

THOMAS W. KUERSCHNER, Deceased.
_____________________________________

STEFANIE A. KUERSCHNER, Appellant,

v.

JAMES T. KUERSCHNER, as Personal Representative of the Estate of
Thomas W. Kuerschner, Appellee.

No. 1 CA-CV 25-0491 PB
FILED 03-05-2026

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. PB2021-003597
The Honorable Lisa Ann VandenBerg, Judge Retired

APPEAL DISMISSED

COUNSEL

Stefanie A. Kuerschner, Carefree
Appellant

Frazer, Ryan, Goldberg & Arnold, LLP, Phoenix
By Scott A. Erickson, Philip B. Whitaker
Counsel for Appellee
 KUERSCHNER v. KUERSCHNER
Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Vice Chief Judge David D. Weinzweig delivered the decision of the Court,
in which Presiding Judge Michael J. Brown and Judge Veronika Fabian
joined.

W E I N Z W E I G, Vice Chief Judge:

¶1 Stefanie Kuerschner appeals two attorney fee sanctions that
the superior court imposed after she continued to litigate her deceased
husband’s probate case—despite having lost on all claims. We dismiss her
appeal and impose sanctions because she continues to violate our rules by
fabricating case citations and omitting record references.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2 Thomas Kuerschner died in June 2021. His will excluded his
widow, Stefanie, from receiving any assets, but she maintained her
community interest in their Scottsdale house. Stefanie filed a notice of
claims against the estate for statutory allowances, community property, the
proceeds from two promissory notes and Thomas’ life insurance policies.

¶3 The superior court appointed Thomas’ son, James
Kuerschner, as personal representative of the estate. James allowed
Stefanie’s claims for the funeral expenses and statutory allowances but
rejected her other claims. At trial, the court rejected Stefanie’s remaining
claims. The court also found Stefanie had unnecessarily extended the
proceedings and awarded James as personal representative $291,377.28 in
attorney fees and costs pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 12-341 and 14-1105.

¶4 Another panel of this court affirmed that decision and
ordered Stefanie to pay James’ appellate attorney fees for pursuing
meritless claims. In re Est. of Kuerschner, 1 CA-CV 25-0108, 2025 WL
2780806, at *8, ¶¶ 50–51 (Ariz. App. Sept. 30, 2025) (mem. decision). The
panel also warned Stefanie about providing incorrect citations and omitting
record references. Id. at *5, ¶¶ 29–30. Despite that warning, she continued.

¶5 After losing at trial, Stefanie issued 22 subpoenas seeking
bank records even though discovery had closed. The superior court
quashed the subpoenas, but she continued to serve them.

2
 KUERSCHNER v. KUERSCHNER
Decision of the Court

¶6 The superior court granted James’ motion for a temporary
restraining order, quashed the outstanding subpoenas and imposed
attorney-fee sanctions on Stefanie. The court found Stefanie had served the
subpoenas after discovery closed without proper notice, all in defiance of
court orders.

¶7 Stefanie filed a motion alleging the superior court had issued
a minute entry reinstating her business’ claims, but the minute entry had
disappeared from the record. She accused either James or a court clerk of
fraudulently removing the minute entry from the court file. The court
struck her motion as “impertinent and scandalous,” finding she had no
good faith basis for her allegations. The court again ordered Stefanie to pay
James’ attorney fees as a sanction.

¶8 Stefanie timely appealed both sanction awards. We have
jurisdiction. A.R.S. §§ 12-2101(A)(2), -120.21(A)(1).

DISCUSSION

¶9 To appeal a civil judgment, the appellant must comply with
the Arizona Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure. ARCAP 1. An appellant
who fails to make a reasonably intelligent effort to comply with the rules
waives unsupported issues. Ramos v. Nichols, 252 Ariz. 519, 522, ¶ 8 (App.
2022). We may sanction parties who violate these rules with contempt,
dismissal and costs or attorney fees. ARCAP 25.

¶10 Rule 13 requires an appellant’s briefs to provide “citations of
legal authorities and appropriate references to the portions of the record on
which the appellant relies.” ARCAP 13(a)(7)(A). Stefanie’s briefs do
neither. Her briefs do not refer to the record. Record references allow the
court to quickly verify the parties’ factual assertions are supported by the
record. Without them, the court must ferret through a vast record with no
direction. The record here contains over 1,200 documents, many of which
are over a hundred pages long and were submitted after briefing was
completed. We need not assume the duties of an advocate to search the
record and support Stefanie’s claims. See Adams v. Valley Nat’l Bank of Ariz.,
139 Ariz. 340, 343 (App. 1984).

¶11 On top of that, Stefanie’s briefs contain 25 citations that are
made up or contain substantial errors like fake quotes or unsupported
propositions. For example:

• Stefanie cites “Orlandini v. Crawford (Arizona Court of Appeals).”
After diligent efforts, we cannot locate a case bearing this name.

3
 KUERSCHNER v. KUERSCHNER
Decision of the Court

• Stefanie quotes “Wallace v. Hon. Smith/Miller, 254 Ariz. 59, 61 ¶ 1
(2023)” as saying Rule 7 and § 12-2108 “together provide the
exclusive framework for determining supersedeas bonds” and that
fee awards are outside the definition of damages awarded. A case
with the name Wallace v. Smith does exist and discusses § 12-2108,
but it does not contain this quote. See generally Wallace v. Smith, 255
Ariz. 377 (2023). And her citation points to a different case named
Zambrano v. M & RC II LLC, 254 Ariz. 53 (2022).

• Stefanie states in Takieh v. O’Meara, 252 Ariz. 51 (App. 2021), this
court “vacated sanctions where a claim, though ultimately
unsuccessful, was supported by a reasonable basis.” In reality, this
court upheld a sanction of attorney fees because the appellant’s
claims were premised on supposition and speculation. Id. at 63, ¶
43.

• Stefanie cites In re Estate of Stewart, 230 Ariz. 480, 486, ¶ 26 (App.
2012) for the proposition that “courts must exercise caution in fee
awards in probate to ensure they are just and do not unfairly
consume a party’s rightful share.” But Stewart never even discusses
attorney fees. See generally id.

¶12 This is Stefanie’s second offense. We already admonished her
in her prior appeal for these exact violations. Kuerschner, 1 CA-CV 25-0108,
at *5, ¶¶ 29–30.

¶13 We find Stefanie’s repeated and unrepentant violations
warrant sanctions under ARCAP 25 to discourage similar behavior.
Although we are generally reluctant to impose such sanctions, In re $15,379
in U.S. Currency, 241 Ariz. 462, 472, ¶ 32 (App. 2016), recidivism after a
warning justifies this result.

CONCLUSION

¶14 We dismiss Stefanie’s appeal under ARCAP 25 because she
continues to fabricate citations and omit record references despite our prior
warning.

4
 KUERSCHNER v. KUERSCHNER
Decision of the Court

¶15 Because counsel for James spent time and resources
identifying Stefanie’s violations, we award James his reasonable attorney
fees and costs under ARCAP 25 upon compliance with ARCAP 21. See also
A.R.S. § 12-349.

MATTHEW J. MARTIN • Clerk of the Court
FILED: JR

5