Cited by

A court abuses its discretion if “there is no evidence to support its conclusion or the reasons given by the court are clearly untenable, legally incorrect, or amount to a denial of justice.” Searchtoppers.com, ¶ 20 (App. 2012) (citation modified).

A court abuses that discretion “when there is no evidence to support its conclusion or the reasons given by the court are clearly untenable, legally incorrect, or amount to a denial of justice.” Searchtoppers.com, ¶ 20 (App. 2012) (cleaned up).

Searchtoppers.com, ¶ 10 (App. 2012).

¶ 30 (App. 2018) (sanctions); ¶ 22 (App. 2012) (denials for new trials); Searchtoppers.com, – 42, ¶¶ 20, 23 (App. 2012) (setting aside default judgments).

“To establish that its failure to timely file an answer is excusable, a party seeking relief must demonstrate that its actions were those of a reasonably prudent person under the circumstances.” Searchtoppers.com, ¶ 22 (App. 2012).

Searchtoppers.com, ¶ 20 (App. 2012).

Searchtoppers.com, ¶ 22 (App. 2012).

Citing Searchtoppers.com, -41 (App. 2012), Teresa asserts that an evidentiary hearing is limited to circumstances where the plaintiff seeks an award of unliquidated damages.

See also Searchtoppers.com, -42, ¶¶ 21-23 (App. 2012) (defendant’s failure to send the complaint to his attorney until a week after he received the application for default was not excusable neglect).

Searchtoppers.com, ¶ 20 (App. 2012).

Moreover, we have discretion to consider even a waived issue if it is an issue of law, such as an interpretation of a statute, see Searchtoppers.com, ¶ 8 (App. 2012), and its consideration “would dispose of an action on appeal and correctly explain the law,” (“[W]hen we are considering the interpretation and application of statutes, we do not believe we can be limited to the arguments made by the parties if th

see also Searchtoppers.com, -42, ¶¶ 22-23 (App. 2012) (determining that the defendant failed to demonstrate excusable neglect in regard to its failure to timely answer the complaint by offering evidence that it intended to forward the complaint to counsel, but failed to do so).

Searchtoppers.com, ¶ 20 (App. 2012).

However, “[m]ere carelessness is not a sufficient reason to set aside a default judgment.” Searchtoppers.com, -42, ¶ 22 (App. 2012) (citation omitted).

¶6 We review a trial court’s ruling on a Rule 60(c) motion for an abuse of discretion and will reverse only if there is “no evidence to support its conclusion or the reasons given by the court are clearly untenable, legally incorrect, or amount to a denial of justice.” Searchtoppers.com, ¶ 20 (App. 2012).

A party’s failure to file a timely answer is excusable only if his or her actions were “reasonably prudent under the circumstances.” Searchtoppers.com, -42, ¶ 22 (App. 2012).

A court abuses its discretion if there is “no evidence to support its conclusion or the reasons given by the court are clearly untenable, legally incorrect, or amount to a denial of justice.” Searchtoppers.com, ¶ 20 (App. 2012).

3 STATE v. JONES Decision of the Court Ariz. 236, 241, ¶ 20

§ 5301(a)(1), dealing with veteran benefits, provides: 7“Because we conclude that the issue presented here, involving the interpretation of [§ 25-530], is an issue of law and a matter of statewide importance, we exercise our discretion to address the merits of [Richard’s] claim.” Searchtoppers.com