Cited by

-20, ¶ 4 (App. 2016) (), but “proper service under the rule is a legal question of personal jurisdiction which we review de novo,” ¶ 9 (App. 2018) ( ¶ 19 (App. 2012), and Ezell, 224 Ariz. at 536, ¶ 15).

¶ 9 (App. 2018); ¶ 19 (App. 2012) (citing cases).

Exam'rs , , 143, , 1372 (1995) ); see also BYS Inc. v. Smoudi , , 577, ¶ 14, , 1201 (App. 2012) ; however, proper service under the rule is a legal question of personal jurisdiction which we review de novo , see Duckstein v. Wolf , , 233, ¶ 19, , 434 (App. 2012) (citing cases); Ezell , 224 Ariz. at 536 , ¶ 15 , 233 P.3d at 649 .

¶ 8 (App. 2012) (citations omitted).

The reopening of a judgment is governed by Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 60, see Breitbart-Napp, 216 Ariz. at 79-80, ¶ 16, which, in turn, provides the basis for ARFLP 85, ARFLP 85 cmt.; see also ARFLP 2(A); ¶ 8 (App. 2012).

¶ 8 (App. 2012) ( ¶ 8 (App. 2001)).

¶ 8 (App. 2012) (noting the interpretation of court rules requires de novo review) ( ¶ 4 (App. 2008), ¶ 8 (App. 2001)).

¶ 10 (App. 2014); ¶ 6 (App. 2004); ¶ 8 (App. 2012) ("We review challenges to the trial court's subject matter jurisdiction and questions involving the application and interpretation of court rules de novo.").

Consequently, a judgment would be void and subject to attack if the court that rendered it was without jurisdiction because of lack of proper service.” ¶ 18 (App. 2012).5 5 As the juvenile court recognized in its order, Marc was seeking to vacate both the adoption order and the order severing his parental rights.

–15, 16, –15, 16 (App. 1994); ¶ 8