Griffith v. Seyferth

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

STANLEY EDGAR GRIFFITH JR., GLORIA BEATRICE GRIFFITH,
DECEASED

No. 1 CA-CV 26-0028 PB
FILED 09-21-2026

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. PB2020-001332
The Honorable Elizabeth T. Bingert, Judge

APPEAL DISMISSED

COUNSEL

Martin S. Griffith, Phoenix
Petitioner/Appellant

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Andrew J. Becke delivered the decision of the Court, in
which Judge James B. Morse Jr. and Chief Judge Randall M. Howe joined.

GRIFFITH v. SEYFERTH
Decision of the Court

B E C K E, Judge:

¶1 In this probate matter, Martin Griffith1 appeals the superior
court’s December 2025 judgment, arising from Susan Seyferth’s petition
regarding her share of the estate of Stanley Griffith Jr. and Gloria Griffith
and Martin’s breach of fiduciary duty as the estate’s personal
representative. We conclude that Martin did not timely file a notice of
appeal and dismiss this appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 Martin and Susan are siblings and Stanley and Gloria’s
children. Stanley and Gloria passed away in 2018 and 2019, respectively. In
March 2020, Martin applied for an informal probate of his parents’ wills.
The superior court admitted the wills to informal probate and appointed
Martin as personal representative.

¶3 In July 2023, Susan petitioned the court to order Martin to
provide an accounting and distribution of the estate’s assets. In response,
Martin provided an informal, two-page report of his calculations. In light
of the lack of detail Martin provided, the court ordered Martin to file a full
accounting of the estate by January 2024.

¶4 Martin filed an incomplete accounting, and Susan moved to
require Martin to work with the court accountant to prepare a complete
accounting. The court granted the motion and ordered Martin to work with
the court accountant and to file a complete accounting by June 2024. Martin
failed to comply with the court’s order, so Susan moved for an order to
show cause. In response, Martin filed over a hundred pages of receipts and
handwritten notes, but nothing that qualified as an accounting.

¶5 In October 2024, Susan petitioned for an adjustment of her
share of the estate and for Martin to be surcharged for his breach of
fiduciary duties. In January 2025, the court found that Martin did not
provide a “sufficient or proper final accounting” and breached his fiduciary
duties. Accordingly, the court ordered Martin to distribute Susan’s share of
the estate to her and awarded attorneys’ fees and costs to Susan in an
amount to be determined. The court ruled that Martin was subject to
surcharge in the amount of the fees award and ordered Martin to reimburse
those fees to the estate. And if Martin failed to comply with the order, the

1 Because several individuals involved in this dispute share a last name, we

respectfully refer to the parties by their first names for clarity.

2

GRIFFITH v. SEYFERTH
Decision of the Court

court ordered that he (in his personal capacity) and the estate would be
jointly and severally liable.

¶6 On August 19, 2025, the court entered a judgment that
resolved all pending matters and included Arizona Rule of Civil
Procedure 54(c) finality language. The court ordered Martin, in his capacity
as personal representative, to distribute $21,741.54 to Susan and to pay
$11,459.56 for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs, totaling $33,201.10. The
court also ordered that if Martin failed to comply with the order, he and the
estate would be jointly and severally liable for the amounts awarded.
Martin failed to appeal this judgment.

¶7 On November 14, 2025, Susan moved for entry of a Rule 54(b)
judgment against Martin and the estate. She asserted that the August 2025
judgment “fully adjudicate[d]” the estate distribution and fees and costs
award claims concerning Martin in both his personal and representative
capacity, but that Martin had not yet complied with the August 2025
judgment. Martin did not object, and the court entered the judgment on
December 9, 2025, in Susan’s favor for $33,201.10, the same amount
awarded in the August 2025 judgment. The judgment included Rule 54(b)
finality language.

¶8 Martin filed a notice of appeal on December 15, 2025.

DISCUSSION

¶9 We review whether we have jurisdiction de novo. Sanchez-
Ravuelta v. Yavapai County, 259 Ariz. 517, 524, ¶ 26 (2025). We have
jurisdiction in probate matters when “a judgment, decree[,] or order [is]
entered in any formal proceedings under [T]itle 14.” A.R.S. § 12-2101(A)(9).
“Rulings in such Title 14 matters are only appealable when they are in the
form of a final judgment or decree.” Brumett v. MGA Home Healthcare, L.L.C.,
240 Ariz. 420, 428, ¶ 13 (App. 2016). “Accordingly, absent compliance with
Rule 54(b) or 54(c), a judgment, decree[,] or order entered in a formal
Title 14 proceeding is not appealable under A.R.S. § 12-2101(A)(9).” Id.; see
also In re Estate of McGathy, 226 Ariz. 277, 280, ¶ 17 (2010) (“In this case, there
is no dispute that the superior court’s order finally resolved [a petition in a
Title 14 proceeding].”). Even so, a party must still timely file a notice of
appeal. ARCAP 9(a) (“[A] party must file a notice of appeal . . . no later than
30 days after the entry of the judgment from which the appeal is taken.”).

¶10 The superior court issued two judgments. The August 2025
judgment directed Martin, in his capacity as personal representative, to
distribute $21,741.54 to Susan and pay an award of attorneys’ fees and costs

3

GRIFFITH v. SEYFERTH
Decision of the Court

of $11,459.56 (totaling $33,201.10). That judgment also provided that, if
Martin failed to timely comply with the order, he and the estate would be
jointly and severally liable for the amounts awarded. The December 2025
judgment did nothing more than memorialize that Martin and the estate
owe Susan the same $33,201.10, jointly and severally.

¶11 These judgments resolve the same two issues: (1) the amount
owed to Susan based on her share of the estate, and (2) the attorneys’ fees
and costs award to Susan. Martin did not appeal the August 2025 judgment.
The court later entered the December 2025 Rule 54(b) judgment, from
which Martin did appeal. But the Rule 54(b) judgment was not appealable
because it did not resolve any claims. See Estate of McGathy, 226 Ariz. at 280,
¶ 17.

¶12 Martin’s notice of appeal is untimely as to the August 2025
judgment. And the December 2025 judgment did not restart the time to file
a notice of appeal. See Fields v. Oates, 230 Ariz. 411, 416, ¶ 21 (App. 2012)
(explaining that “[w]hen the superior court enter[s] a substantively
identical judgment for [a specific, monetary amount], it neither revive[s] the
former time for appeal nor initiate[s] a new period within which to
appeal”). We, therefore, lack appellate jurisdiction and dismiss this appeal.2

CONCLUSION

¶13 We dismiss this appeal.

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

2 Susan failed to file an answering brief, but because we do not have
jurisdiction over this appeal, we do not treat that failure as confession of
error.

4