Probate records will not be available online

Probate records will not be available online

Robert Anglen - Jan. 1, 2012 09:50 PM

The Arizona Republic

A newly imposed rule restricting electronic access to Maricopa County Probate Court records means that cases cannot be reviewed without physically going to the clerk of court's office.

The rule has raised concerns among many of those involved in probate court who say it prevents them from gaining access to their own cases or cases involving relatives. It also has some probate judges and lawyers calling on the state's highest court to lift the rule, which they described as inconvenient and problematic.

"Apparently these case records were previously provided online in violation of the rule," Presiding Maricopa County Probate Court Judge Rosa Mroz wrote in a December e-mail. "At this time, however, there is nothing we can do."

The rule, which prohibits the general public from accessing court records from so-called remote locations, including home and laptop computers, was established in 2009 and has been unenforced for almost two years.

The decision to limit electronic access was based in large part on concerns over identity theft, according to those who served on the Supreme Court advisory committee, which recomended the restriction in 2009.

Officials at the Arizona Supreme Court, which oversees operations of all state courts, said they didn't become aware that Maricopa County was making judicial orders and minute entries in probate cases available online until last month, when they ordered a halt to the practice.

The restriction also applies to court orders in mental health cases.

The decision to limit access comes after a 2010-2011 investigation by The Arizona Republic that found Maricopa County Probate Court for years allowed the assets of some vulnerable adults to become cash machines for attorneys and fiduciaries. Judges charged with overseeing these cases rarely stepped in to limit or reduce fees, even when incapacitated adults ended up on state assistance programs.

Stories and columns resulted in court reforms and new state legislation last year designed to make probate court more accessible and establish greater oversight among judges, lawyers and private fiduciaries, who are appointed by the court to oversee the healthcare and finances of individuals incapable of caring for themselves.

Some say limiting access to records is taking a step back; that it hampers people involved in probate court cases, many of whom are elderly and unable to physically travel to court, from accessing information.

"I think it's wrong. People in litigtation need to have access to their cases," said Dennis Ball, spokesperson for a group of 25 activists seeking to reform probate court. "This is creating a block for people to be informed properly."

Ball pointed out that many people whose relatives have been declared wards of the court live out of state and can't access court records without significant costs.

"The courts do not always act in best interests of the people," he said. "We have seen cases... where people have been abused and misused by the probate court."

Details contained in judicial orders and minute entries include important court dates and decisions by judges on a host of issues. Among them: declarations of incapacitation, appointment of lawyers and fiduciaries, dismissal of cases, healthcare arrangements, property sales and approval of fees that could significantly impact a person's assets.

Maricopa County Superior Court Clerk Michael Jeanes, who chaired the committee, said last week that he is not aware of a case where court records were used to carry out identity theft in the past two years.

"The correlation to identity theft and court records is historically low," he said.

Jeanes acknowledged that the court is considering petitioning the Supreme Court for a rule change to lift the prohibition. But even if the Supreme Court agrees, the change will likely not go into effect until 2013.

Any member of the public can petition the the Supreme Court for a rule change. The court accepts petitions through Jan. 10 when it then opens petitions for public comment. In the summer, the court allows petitioners to revise petitions based on comments and then in the fall considers which, if any, rules it wants to adopt for next year.

Phoenix lawyer David Bodney, who represents The Arizona Republic and sat on the 2009 advisory committee, said he believes tht a strong case can be made for allowing remote electronic access.

In 2009 the court had few rules related to electronic access of records. Bodney said there was concern among the 13 committee members about the dangers posed of court records falling into the wrong hands.

In addition to probate records, the rule limited remote electronic access of juvenile, family law, paternity and protection orders.

Bodney said at the time he did not believe probate court records should be included in the restricted documents. He still does not.

"The newspaper's review of the probate system supports greater public access to those records without the costs or delays associated with a physical review at the courthouse," he said.

Robert Anglen investigates consumer issues for The Arizona Republic and azcentral.com. If you would like him to look into a possible scam, fraud or deception, e-mail him at robert.anglen@arizonarepublic.com.

Please  read complete article at link below:

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/2011/12/29/20111229probate-records-not-online.html

Editor's note: This Shark believes that someone tapped the judges on the shoulder and told them, "You can't let the public easily discover our corruption."  Lucius Verenus, Schoolmaster, ProbateSharks.com

KawamotoDragon.com