Jump To

Top Caption [Combined Opinion

                  by Veronika Fabian](https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10804890/champagne-v-bozer/about:blank#o1)

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 6, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

CHAMPAGNE v. BOZER

Court of Appeals of Arizona

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 1 CA-CV 25-0387 PB

• Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

• Opinion

• Authorities (7)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (6.6K)

• PDF

Combined Opinion

                        by Veronika Fabian

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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 RICK CHAMPAGNE REVOCABLE TRUST,

THE R.L. TRUST
JAY DOUGLAS WILEY II

No. 1 CA-CV 25-0387 PB

FILED 03-06-2026

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. PB2023-050690
No. PB2023-050691
The Honorable Vanessa N. Smith, Commissioner

AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, REMANDED

COUNSEL

Evans Dukarich LLP, Tempe
By Gary Dukarich, Steven L. Evans, Nicholas J. Kuntz, Michael Malin, and
Jeff Boshes
Counsel for Respondent/Appellant Christopher M. Bozer

Becker & House, PLLC, Scottsdale
By Mark E. House and Amanda L. Barney
Counsel for Petitioner/Appellee Amanda Champagne

Iannitelli Marcolini, P.C., Phoenix
By Claudio E. Iannitelli and Jason K. Thomas
Co-Counsel for Petitioner/Appellee Amanda Champagne
CHAMPAGNE, et al., v. BOZER, et al.
Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

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

F A B I A N, Judge:

¶1 Christopher M. Bozer appeals from the superior court’s
judgment (1) removing him as a co-trustee of a private trust, (2) finding no
basis for continued payment by the Trust of his litigation expenses, and (3)
denying his renewed motion for Rule 59 relief.

¶2 Because the superior court did not abuse its discretion in
finding Bozer was unfit to serve as co-trustee, this Court affirms his
removal. However, under the plain language of the Trust, Bozer may still
be reimbursed for litigation expenses even though he is no longer serving
as trustee. Thus, the portion of the judgment declaring that he may not
recover such expenses is reversed.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶3 Richard (“Rick”) Champagne1 was the original trustee of the
Rick Champagne Revocable Trust (“the Trust”). Rick and Bozer were
business partners. The Trust named Bozer, Jay Douglas Wiley II, and
Amanda Champagne (Rick’s daughter) as successor co-trustees.

¶4 After Rick’s death, Ann Marie Champagne (Rick’s ex-wife
and Amanda’s mother) petitioned to have a previous version of the Trust
pronounced the governing instrument. In support of her petition, she
alleged Bozer and Wiley, among others, had unduly influenced Rick to
execute various amendments to earlier versions of the Trust.

¶5 Amanda then petitioned to remove Bozer and Wiley as co-
trustees and unwind the sale of the controlling interest in the largest asset
of the Trust. She claimed Bozer and Wiley had sold the controlling interest

1 To avoid confusion, this Court respectfully refers to all persons with the

last name of Champagne by their first names.

2
CHAMPAGNE, et al., v. BOZER, et al.
Decision of the Court

without disclosing the transaction to her or the Trust’s beneficiaries and for
significantly less than fair market value.

¶6 On August 29, 2024, Amanda filed an emergency petition to
remove Bozer from his position as co-trustee based on multiple arrests and
statements Bozer made to the police. Specifically, Bozer had been arrested
on charges of domestic battery by strangulation, assault, and unlawful
imprisonment. One case was dismissed because the victim would not
cooperate. In the other, Bozer pled guilty to assault. Bozer was also arrested
for two counts of interference with judicial process for violating an order of
protection. Amanda attached copies of the arrest reports and dispositions
to her petition. In those reports, Bozer made statements to police admitting
to illicit drug use and informed police and a treating doctor that he was a
danger to himself. He also admitted violating an order of protection.
Finally, Amanda alleged that Bozer had offered one million dollars to “an
acquaintance to kill his business partner’s ex-wife that was suing him.”

¶7 The superior court held an initial hearing on the petition. At
the end, the court removed Bozer from his position as co-trustee of the
Trust. The court reasoned:

My biggest concern here . . . I pulled up the criminal docket
and looked at a plea. Mr. Bozer actually entered a plea, I
believe, mid-July, July 16th if I looked at the date correct.
Which actually was before he committed the interference with
judicial process. So in other words, he was on release for one
action, one criminal action, when he committed yet another.

When we look at that, along with the two counts of
interference with judicial process, along with the threats to—
and, one, an interested person, but also the mother of three of
the beneficiaries, it just—it is not appropriate for him to
continue to serve.

¶8 The court concluded “under 14-10706 I am removing Mr.
Bozer. He is not fit at this time to serve as trustee. And that certainly at least
should cure any financial concerns.”

¶9 Thereafter, the court filed an order finding that because
“Bozer is no longer Co-Trustee of the [Trust], there is no basis for the
continued payment by the [Trust], of [Bozer’s] fiduciary attorney . . . and
his firm.” The superior court denied Bozer’s renewed motion for Rule 59
relief on March 25, 2025. However, because that order was unsigned, this
Court ordered this appeal be stayed until the entry of a signed order. The

3
CHAMPAGNE, et al., v. BOZER, et al.
Decision of the Court

superior court signed that order on January 30, 2026, and entered it on
February 2, 2026, lifting the stay. Bozer’s premature notice of appeal is
deemed effective. See Eaton Fruit Co. v. Cal. Spray-Chem. Corp., 102 Ariz. 129,
130 (1967); Tripati v. Forwith, 223 Ariz. 81, 84-85 ¶¶ 14-17 (App. 2009).

¶10 This Court has jurisdiction over Bozer’s timely appeal under
Article VI, Section 9 of the Arizona Constitution and A.R.S.
§§ 12-120.21(A)(1) and 2101(A)(9).

DISCUSSION

I. The Superior Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion When It
Removed Bozer as a Co-Trustee.

¶11 Bozer argues the superior court violated his right to due
process under the United States and Arizona Constitutions by removing
him as co-trustee of the Trust without an evidentiary hearing. He also
argues the Arizona Rules of Probate Procedure required an evidentiary
hearing before his removal. He contends the record was devoid of evidence
to support his removal as co-trustee.

¶12 This Court reviews the removal of a trustee for an abuse of
discretion. See In re Est. of Newman, 219 Ariz. 260, 270-71 ¶¶ 39-40 (App.
2008); Restatement (Third) of Trusts § 37 cmt. d (2003). This Court does not
reassess “conflicting evidence or redetermine the preponderance of the
evidence, but examine[s] the record only to determine whether substantial
evidence exists to support the trial court’s action.” In re Est. of Pouser, 193
Ariz. 574, 579 ¶ 13 (1999). This Court also accepts the superior court’s
factual findings unless they are clearly erroneous. Est. of Newman, 219 Ariz.
at 265 ¶ 13.

A. Bozer’s Due Process Rights Were Not Violated.

¶13 Bozer first argues that he had a property right in his
appointment as co-trustee. Thus, his removal without an evidentiary
hearing violated the due process clauses of both the state and federal
constitutions.

¶14 The initial inquiry in analyzing a due process argument is
whether a constitutionally protected property interest exists. See Bd. of
Regents of State Coll. v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 577 (1972); Alpha, LLC v. Dartt, 232
Ariz 303, 305 ¶ 11 (App. 2013). No Arizona law explicitly states that a
trustee has a property interest in his trustee appointment.

4
CHAMPAGNE, et al., v. BOZER, et al.
Decision of the Court

¶15 But assuming without deciding that Bozer had a property
interest in his co-trusteeship, this Court finds that Bozer received due
process. Due process requires “notice and an opportunity to be heard.”
Iphaar v. Indus. Comm’n, 171 Ariz. 423, 426 (App. 1992). Bozer received notice
of the removal hearing, which both he and his attorney attended.

¶16 Parties are not always entitled to an evidentiary hearing to
satisfy due process requirements. “Procedural due process does not require
an evidentiary hearing . . . when the legal claims do not turn on disputed
facts.” State v. Hidalgo, 241 Ariz. 543, 549 ¶ 11 (2017). Arizona law permits a
superior court to remove a trustee for lack of fitness. A.R.S. § 14-10706(B)(3).
Here, based on undisputed facts, the superior court found Bozer unfit to
serve.

¶17 The superior court found Bozer was unfit for several reasons,
including his guilty plea, interference with judicial process, criminal
proceedings, and threats against Ann Marie. The court took judicial notice
of the criminal proceedings against Bozer. The court reviewed police
records that documented Bozer’s arrest for two counts of interference with
judicial process. The record shows Bozer entered a guilty plea in one of the
criminal cases. Although the court did not view the body camera footage
showing Bozer making threatening statements of harm to Ann Marie,
Bozer’s attorney conceded Bozer made statements of harm.

¶18 Bozer also argues that removal was improper because his
misconduct is unrelated to his ability as a trustee. But the plain language of
A.R.S. § 14-10706(B) does not require that relationship:

The court may remove a trustee if:

1. The trustee has committed a material breach of trust.

2. Lack of cooperation among cotrustees substantially impairs
   the administration of the trust.

3. Because of unfitness, unwillingness or persistent failure of
   the trustee to administer the trust for the benefit of the
   beneficiaries, the court determines that removal of the trustee
   best serves the interests of the beneficiaries.

4. There has been a substantial change of circumstances or
   removal is requested by all of the qualified beneficiaries, the
   court finds that removal of the trustee best serves the interests
   of all of the beneficiaries and is not inconsistent with a

5
CHAMPAGNE, et al., v. BOZER, et al.
Decision of the Court

material purpose of the trust and a suitable cotrustee or
successor trustee is available.

¶19 Bozer may be deemed unfit for misconduct unrelated to his
role as trustee. Indeed, the Restatement (Third) of Trusts section 37,
comment e (2003), lists unfitness due to substance abuse or the commission
of a crime as possible grounds for removal of a trustee. Bozer has not shown
that the court abused its discretion in removing him as a co-trustee under
A.R.S. § 14-10706(A)(3).

B. The Arizona Rules of Probate Procedure Did Not Require
an Evidentiary Hearing.

¶20 Bozer next argues the Arizona Rules of Probate Procedure
required an evidentiary hearing before his removal as co-trustee.
Specifically, he argues, citing Rule 17(b)(2) of the Arizona Rules of Probate
Procedure, that “[w]here a probate proceeding is contested, the Rules
require a court to ‘follow the procedures set forth in Rules 27-29 relating to
contested matters.’”

¶21 The problem with Bozer’s argument is that he waited until
two days before the initial hearing to file an objection when, in order to
contest the petition, an objection had to be filed no later than seven days
before the hearing. Ariz. R. Prob. P. 15(e)(1). Furthermore, Arizona Rule of
Probate Procedure 23(b) is permissive with respect to an evidentiary
hearing, providing: “[i]f the court does not decide at the initial hearing all
the issues raised in a petition, the court may set an evidentiary hearing on
the remaining issues.” Here, the court decided all the issues raised in
Amanda’s petition concerning Bozer at the initial hearing and thus no
evidentiary hearing was required. As noted above, Bozer does not actually
dispute any of the factual allegations on which the petition was based. The
probate rules do not require an evidentiary hearing under these
circumstances.

II. The Superior Court Erred in Finding There Was No Basis For the
Continued Reimbursement of Bozer’s Fiduciary Attorney Fees and
Its Ruling Is Premature.

¶22 Finally, Bozer argues the superior court erred by refusing to
reimburse him for future litigation expenses. The superior court found
Bozer was no longer entitled to legal expenses after his removal as trustee.
This Court reviews de novo a superior court’s legal conclusions in a probate
matter. Matter of Ghostley, 248 Ariz. 112, 115 ¶ 8 (App. 2020).

6
CHAMPAGNE, et al., v. BOZER, et al.
Decision of the Court

¶23 The superior court focused on Bozer’s status as a former
trustee as the reason for precluding his reimbursement. But the Trust at
Article VI(I) provides that:

Any Trustee, whether or not presently serving as such
hereunder, shall be fully indemnified (out of the income
and/or the principal of the Trust or any trusts created
hereunder), for any liability and/or expenses, including
reasonable attorneys’ fees, incurred by or damages assessed
against the Trustee, in his or her capacity as such, for acts or
omissions of the Trustee, unless such liability, expenses or
damages are finally adjudged to have been caused by the
Trustee’s gross negligence, fraud or willful misconduct.
Expenses incurred by the Trustee in defending an action
brought against the Trustee in his or her capacity as such may
be paid by the trust in advance of the final disposition of the
action upon a written undertaking from the Trustee claiming
indemnification to repay such amount unless it shall
ultimately be determined that the Trustee is entitled to be
indemnified as provided in this Paragraph K. of Article VI.

¶24 The Trust expressly contemplates indemnification of a trustee
“whether or not presently serving,” which by its plain language includes a
former trustee. According to A.R.S. § 14-10105(B), the terms of a trust
prevail over the Arizona Trust Code, except for certain enumerated
provisions not applicable here. Thus, the court erred in precluding Bozer
from reimbursement by the Trust for his legal expenses merely because his
status changed from current to former trustee.

¶25 The superior court’s order is also premature. Bozer has not
yet applied for reimbursement of legal expenses after his status change. If
Bozer applies for reimbursement, the superior court shall consider Bozer’s
entitlement under the Trust’s requirements.

¶26 Because the superior court erred as a matter of law and its
ruling is premature, this Court reverses the determination that Bozer is no
longer entitled to reimbursement of his litigation expenses.

CONCLUSION

¶27 For the foregoing reasons, this Court affirms the removal of
Bozer as a co-trustee but reverses its judgment finding no basis for the
continued payment by the Trust of Bozer’s litigation expenses. This matter

7
CHAMPAGNE, et al., v. BOZER, et al.
Decision of the Court

is remanded for proceedings consistent with this decision. In its discretion,
this Court denies the parties’ requests for attorney fees.

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

8