Cited by

See Rogone v. Correia , , 49, ¶ 17

¶ 23 (App. 2014) ( ¶ 27 (App. 2001).

¶ 22 (App. 2014) (citing A.R.S.

¶ 23 (App. 2014) ( ¶ 27 (App. 2001)).

supports the superior court’s conclusion, or the reasons given by the superior court [are] clearly untenable, legally incorrect, or amount to a denial of justice.” ¶ 12 (App. 2014); Long, 229 Ariz. at 464, ¶ 22 (citation omitted).

¶ 12 (App. 2014) (citing Hilgeman v. Am.

¶ 12 (App. 2014); ("Clause 6 [of Rule 60(c)] and the first five clauses are mutually exclusive."); but see Amanti Elec., Inc. v. Engineered Structures, Inc., ¶ 10 (App. 2012) ("[E]ven when relief might have been available under one of the fi

¶21 -50, ¶¶ 16- 20 (App. 2014), in arguing the homestead exemption may not be denied based upon “discretionary equitable considerations.” But, the family court here did not deny Husband the application of the homestead exemption based upon discretionary equitable considerations.

Fraud upon the court, however, “ ‘harms the integrity of the judicial process and is a wrong against the institutions set up to protect and safeguard the public.’ ” , 48 ¶ 11, (quoting Orlandini, 227 Ariz. at 300 ¶ 43, ).