Cited by

¶ 11 (App. 2009) (citing Hirsch v. Nat’l Van Lines, Inc., ).

¶ 18 (App. 2009); State ex rel.

¶ 18 (App. 2009) (“A party has made a general appearance when he has taken any action, other than objecting to personal jurisdiction, that recognizes the case is pending in court.”); see also Montano v. Scottsdale Baptist Hosp., Inc., (“[A] general appearance by a party who has not been

§ 25-318(C); Kline v. Kline, 221 Ariz, 564, P.3d 599 (App. 2010); P.2d 295 (1975)).

¶ 10 (2003) (citing cases).2 ¶12 Arizona’s crime-fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege applies “when there is a prima facie showing that a communication with an attorney was used to perpetuate a crime or fraud.” ¶ 34 (App. 2009) (citation omitted).

ARCAP 11(c)(1)(B) (“If the appellant will contend on appeal that a judgment, finding or conclusion is unsupported by the evidence or is contrary to the evidence, the appellant must include in the record transcripts of all proceedings containing evidence relevant to that judgment, finding or conclusion.”); ¶ 33 (App. 2009) (“When no transcript is provided on appeal, the reviewing court assumes that the record supports the trial court’s decision.”) ( ¶ 11 (App. 1998)).

Were there a jurisdictional defect by the failure to prosecute the action (serve process) within the time allowed by law, it has been waived by failing to claim it at the earliest opportunity.”); ¶ 18 (App. 2009) (“A party has made a general appearance when he has taken any action, other than objecting to personal jurisdiction, that recognizes the case is pending in court.”); ¶ 23 (App. 2008) (Personal jurisdiction can be waived if not raised properly, including

¶ 35 (App. 2009) (citation omitted).

¶29 “If service is not achieved according to the requirements of the applicable procedural rule, it is technically defective[.]” ¶ 21 (App. 2009).

he suit when distinguishing case law holding that the provisions 6 TITLEMAX v. FORNARIS Decision of the Court of Rule 4.1(d) are “liberally construed” in favor of upholding the validity of service “if actual notice has been received by the defendant.” Marks, 146 Ariz. at 15; ¶ 21 (App. 2009) (“[S]trict technical compliance with rules governing service may be excused when the court has already acquired jurisdiction over the receiving party and that party receives actual, timely notice of [the ple

In a case involving the Arizona Rules of Family Law Procedure, this Court took a similar approach, holding that “strict technical compliance with rules governing service may be excused when the court has already acquired jurisdiction over the receiving party and that party receives actual, timely notice.” ¶ 21 (App. 2009).

¶ 22 n.10 (App. 2009) (“Collins argued the merits of his client’s position and Husband cannot avoid the consequences of that appearance by resort to the jargon of ‘special appearances.’”); see id.

¶ 21 (App. 2009) (noting that “strict technical compliance with rules governing service may be excused when the court has already acquired jurisdiction over the receiving party and that party receives actual, timely notice”).

“When no transcript is provided on appeal, the reviewing court assumes that the record supports the trial court’s decision.” ¶ 33 (App. 2009) ( ¶ 11 (App. 1998)).

¶33 The crime-fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege provides that the privilege will not apply where “there is a prima facie showing that a communication with an attorney was used to perpetuate a crime or fraud.” ¶ 34 (App. 2009) (internal 9 DOCTOR v. POTTER Decision of the Court citations omitted).

The superior court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a party who has made a general appearance by “tak[ing] any action, other than objecting to personal jurisdiction, that recognizes the case is pending in court.” ¶ 18 (App. 2009); see also State ex rel.

Bd., (concluding that a party “was served” on the date the party acknowledged receiving an administrative decision even though the administrative decision was “served by ordinary mail and not by registered mail or personal service” as required under the ARA); ¶ 21 (App. 2009) (“If service is not achieved according to the requirements of the applicable procedural rule, it is technically defective .

When an appellant fails to provide a transcript relevant to issues raised on appeal, we “assume[] that the record supports the trial court’s decision.” ¶ 33 (App. 2009).