Title: Leiby v. Superior Court of Maricopa County
Citation: 101 Ariz. 517, 421 P.2d 874
Docket Number: 8834
State: Arizona
Issuer: Arizona Supreme Court
Date: December 28, 1966

101 Ariz. 517 (1966) 421 P.2d 874 Claire E. LEIBY, Petitioner, v. The SUPERIOR COURT OF MARICOPA COUNTY, Ariz., the Honorable Robert L. Meyers, Judge of said Court, the Honorable Frank X. Gordon, Jr., Judge Superior Court of Mohave County, C.D. Tatum, Clerk of Superior Court of Mohave County, Respondents. No. 8834. Supreme Court of Arizona. In Banc. December 28, 1966. Rehearing Denied January 31, 1967. *518 Beverly J. McConnell, Wilson &amp; McConnell, Phoenix, for petitioner. Robert L. Meyers, Judge, Superior Court, Maricopa County, in pro. per. McFARLAND, Justice. Claire E. Leiby, hereafter referred to as petitioner, filed her petition in this court requesting a writ of mandamus against the superior courts of Mohave County and Maricopa County, and a writ of prohibition against the superior court of Mohave County. An alternative writ of prohibition was granted by this court September 20, 1966. Petitioner had filed a petition for ancillary probate and for appointment as administratrix of the will of George H. Keefe, No. P 66097, with the Maricopa County superior court on April 13, 1966. This petition affirmatively alleged that the only property known to petitioner, and belonging to the deceased in the State of Arizona, was a parcel of real estate located in Mohave County, Arizona. On June 6, 1966, respondent judge of the Maricopa County superior court caused the following order to be entered: Petitioner contends the superior court has jurisdiction over this cause, and that any transfer on the ground of improper venue would be an abuse of the court's discretion. With this contention we cannot agree. The applicable statutory provisions are as follows: The foregoing statutes are unambiguous in that they evidence a clear legislative intent that an ancillary probate must be had in a county wherein the testator left an estate. The question which is presented before this court in the instant case is whether the statutes are jurisdictional or relate only to venue. Similar probate statutes in other states have been held to relate to jurisdiction rather than venue. In re Brady's Estate, 177 Cal. 537, 171 P. 303; State ex rel. Neal v. Kaufmann, 86 *519 Wash. 172, 149 P. 656; In re Davis' Estate, 171 Okl. 575, 43 P.2d 115; Presbury v. County Court of Kay County, 88 Okl. 273, 213 P. 311; Miller v. Weston, 67 Colo. 534, 189 P. 610; White v. Baker, Tex. Civ.App., 118 S.W.2d 319. When the jurisdiction is further categorized as jurisdiction over the subject matter, as opposed to jurisdiction to render the order given, the courts have spoken in terms of jurisdiction over the subject matter. Miller v. Weston, supra, White v. Baker, supra. Petitioner cites the constitution of Arizona, Article 6, Section 13, in support of her contention that the probate statutes are not jurisdictional. This section provides: In speaking of this constitutional provision in the case of Ward v. Stevens, 86 Ariz. 222, 344 P.2d 491, we said: In like manner we hold that Article 6, § 13, of the Arizona constitution does not expand the jurisdiction of the superior court, insofar as the county in which ancillary probate may be had is concerned. A dominant purpose of ancillary probate is to collect and conserve assets for the benefit of local creditors. Smith v. Nomart, 51 Ariz. 134, 75 P.2d 38, 114 A.L.R. 1456; In re Glassford, 114 Cal. App. 2d 181, 249 P.2d 908, 34 A.L.R.2d 1259; Murphy v. Crouse, 135 Cal. 14, 66 P. 971; Curtis v. Schell, 129 Cal. 208, 61 P. 951. For this reason, our legislature has restricted such probates to counties wherein assets are located, and the ancillary probate must be filed in one of those counties. The creditors then have greater opportunity to receive notice of the proceedings. Probate procedure differs from civil actions in general in that it is originally a creature of statute, and not of either equity or the common law, and is therefore much more strictly regulated by statute. Shattuck v. Shattuck, 67 Ariz. 122, 192 P.2d 229; Sanders v. Sanders, 52 Ariz. 156, 79 P.2d 523; State ex rel. Young v. Superior Court, 14 Ariz. 126, 125 P. 707. As was stated in Vargas v. Greer, 60 Ariz. 110, 131 P.2d 818: In the case above quoted, it was held that the transfer of a probate proceeding from Apache County wherein the intestate died, and the assets were located to Navajo County was invalid, and the order of the superior court of Navajo County was subject to collateral attack for lack of jurisdiction. In the light of the holding in the Vargas case, supra, and the legislative intent manifest in the statutes, we hold that the superior court of Maricopa County lacked jurisdiction over *520 the subject matter of the cause and had no authority to transfer the case to Mohave County. The petition should be dismissed in the superior court of Maricopa County. Under the facts of the instant case, Mohave County only has jurisdiction if the case is filed directly in the superior court of that county, and does not have jurisdiction as a result of the transfer. Therefore, the writ of prohibition in the alternative is made permanent. STRUCKMEYER, C.J., BERNSTEIN, V.C.J., and UDALL and LOCKWOOD, JJ., concur.