Cited by

The superior court abuses its discretion when its decision is “manifestly unreasonable, or exercised on untenable grounds, or for untenable reasons.” ¶ 16 (App. 2009).

DISCUSSION ¶20 This court reviews de novo the superior court’s grant of a motion for summary judgment, ¶ 7 (App. 2009), viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, Normandin v. Encanto Adventures, LLC, ¶ 9 (2019).

A court abuses its discretion when it exercises discretion that is “manifestly unreasonable, or exercised on untenable grounds, or for untenable reasons.” ¶ 16 (App. 2009).

And although, as C-Back correctly noted, “[t]he superior court was not required to accept and examine evidence presented to it for the first time in connection with [a] motion for reconsideration,” ¶ 17 (App. 2009), that principle is irrelevant here because the superior court did, in fact, accept and consider the conditional loan approval.

60 ¶ 7 (App. June 27, 2024) ( ¶ 16 (App. 2009)).

¶ 10 (App. 2009); Ariz. R. Civ.

¶ 16 (App. 2009) (abuse of discretion is “discretion .

¶ 17 (App. 2009) (“The superior court was not required to accept and examine evidence presented to it for the first time in connection with [plaintiff’s] motion for reconsideration.”); see also RT Automotive Ctr., Inc. v. Westlake Services, LLC, ¶ 12 (App. 2022) (“We typically do not consider m

¶24 Under general rules of agency law, which apply to the attorney–client relationship, ¶ 14 (App. 2009), an attorney’s knowledge can be imputed to his client.

¶ 26 (App. 2008); ¶ 10 n.4 (App. 2009) ("There are differing views expressed in the case law as to whether an appellate court or a trial court must perform an independent search of the record for facts not presented by a party opposing summary judgment.") (collecting cases).

¶ 10 (App. 2009) (“In deciding a motion for summary judgment, the [superior] court considers those portions of the verified pleadings, deposition, answers to interrogatories and admissions on file which are brought to the court’s attention by the parties.”) (emphasis in original, citation omitted).

Summary judgment is still a final judgment on the merits, ¶ 13 (App. 2009), and the moving party must carry their burden of showing no genuine disputes of material fact and entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, Ariz. R. Civ.

P. 26(b)(1); (“‘Abuse of discretion’ is discretion manifestly unreasonable, or exercised on untenable grounds, or for untenable reasons.”).4 ¶24 The Campions also claim the trial court erroneously denied their renewed motion to show cause and for sanctions, but fail to develop a meaningful argument o

Abuse of discretion occurs 3 IN RE ADAN R. Decision of the Court when the trial court’s action is “manifestly unreasonable.” ¶ 16 (App. 2009).

An abuse of discretion exists when the superior court’s judgment is “manifestly unreasonable, or exercised on untenable grounds, or for untenable reasons.” ¶ 16 (App. 2009).

4 SCHOLTES, et al. v. GONZALES, et al. Decision of the Court ¶11 In deciding a motion for summary judgment, the superior court considers “those portions of the verified pleadings, deposition, answers to interrogatories and admissions on file which are brought to the court’s attention by the parties.” ¶ 10 (App. 2009) (alteration in original) (quoting Choisser v. State ex rel.

¶16 We review the family court’s denial of a petition for legal decision-making and parenting time for an abuse of discretion, ¶ 11 (App. 2013), and the denial of a motion for reconsideration, ¶ 16 (App. 2009).