Cited by

Fraud on the court may allow relief where a party has 8 DYREK v. DYREK Decision of the Court committed “some intentional act or conduct that has prevented the unsuccessful party from having a fair submission of the controversy.” –77, ¶ 14 (App. 2014) (citation modified).

–78 ¶ 20 (App. 2014) (rejecting wife’s argument “that fraud on the court may be committed only by an officer of the court, not by a party”).

¶22 In contrast, “[f]raud on the court is a variety of extrinsic fraud.” ¶ 14 (App. 2014).

at 451; –77, ¶ 14 (App. 2014) (citations omitted); see also, –66 (1929) (fraud on the court when wife falsely claimed not to know husband’s residence to pursue annulment action “without [husband] having actual knowledge of the pendency of the action and an opportunity to appear and

-77, ¶ 14 (App. 2014) () (alterations in original).

As such, it “damaged the ‘integrity of the judicial process’ and ‘is a wrong against the institutions set up to protect and safeguard the public.’” ¶ 16 (App. 2014) (citation omitted).

¶9 “Fraud on the court is a variety of extrinsic fraud.” ¶ 14 (App. 2014).

See, ¶ 23 (App. 2014) (even a “false statement to the court about a matter in dispute rarely will constitute a fraud on the court”).

Fraud occurs “[w]hen a party obtains a judgment by concealing material facts and suppressing the truth with the intent to mislead the court.” –77, ¶ 14 (App. 2014) (citation omitted); –17, ¶ 21 (App. 2016) (finding fraud when individual used a fraudulent acknowledgement of paternity “to obtain a birth certificate and to avoid court proceedings that would have required a best-interests assessment”).

that has prevented the unsuccessful party from having a fair submission of the controversy.” –77, ¶ 14 (App. 2014) (internal quotation marks, alterations, and citations omitted).

P. 60(c)(5), which provides relief from a “final judgment, order or proceeding [if] it is no longer equitable that the judgment should have prospective application”) (brackets in original); ¶ 16 (App. 2014) (holding the superior court retains jurisdiction to modify a decree awarding a non-modifiable spousal maintenance “when the decree is the product of a fraud on the court”).

¶ 2 n.1 (App. 2014) ( ¶ 8 (App. 2012)).

Cypress on Sunland Homeowners Ass’n v. Orlandini, ¶ 42 (App. 2011); ¶ 15 (App. 2014) (“[A] party may be entitled to equitable relief from a provision of a dissolution decree that is procured by extrinsic fraud.”) (internal quotations and citation omitted).

– 5 LEANNA S. v. DCS, et al. Decision of the Court 77, ¶¶ 14-16, –50 (App. 2014) (superior court had jurisdiction to modify an agreed-upon non-modifiable spousal maintenance provision in a decree of disso

¶ 20 (App. 2014) (-66 (1929) for the principle that: “[P]laintiff committed fraud on the court by affidavit falsely representing she did not know where defendant lived”).

176-77 ¶ 14, (citations omitted); accord Bates v. Bates, 1 Ariz.App.

¶ 13 (App. 2014) 3 BURK v. TEUFEL Decision of the Court from Husband and held in its trust account on Wife’s behalf.

¶ 13 (App. 2014); ¶ 7 (App. 2010).