Cited by

¶ 19 (App. 2012) (personal jurisdiction); Laveen Meadows Homeowners Ass’n v. Mejia, ¶ 10 (App. 2020) (Rule 60(b)(4) motion).

¶ 26 (App. 2012) (stating that an evidentiary hearing is required to resolve "contested issues of material fact").

or the record fails to provide substantial evidence to support the trial court’s finding.” ¶ 8 (App. 2012) (cleaned up).

¶ 8 (App. 2012); ¶ 6 (App. 2016).

–82, ¶¶ 10, 12–14 (2006) (“We granted review to determine whether a party may bring a separate civil action for relief, rather than file a Rule 60(c) motion, when the party alleges ownership in real property not disposed of in a dissolution decree.”) (emphasis added) (abrogated on other grounds); ¶ 8 (App. 2012) (holding that because Ariz. R. Civ.

¶17 This Court reviews “questions involving the application and interpretation of court rules de novo.” ¶ 8 (App. 2012).

-32 ¶ 9 (App. 2012) (husband’s ten-month delayed motion to vacate a default decree can only be heard on appeal if the decree was void or if wife committed fraud, otherwise the six-month and reasonableness time limits apply to the motion).

¶ 15 (App. 2023) ( ¶ 5 (App. 2012)).

See Chartone, ¶ 14 (App. 2004); 4 WALLACE v. IRVING, ¶ 8 (App. 2012).

¶17 “Proper service of process is essential for the court to have jurisdiction over a defendant.” ¶ 18 (App. 2012).

¶ 26 (App. 2012) (discussing when hearings are and are not needed on applications to set aside a judgment); Atreus Cmtys.

We review “questions involving the application and interpretation of court rules de novo.” ¶ 8 (App. 2012).

¶ 8 (App. 2012); ¶ 7 (App. 2012).