Cited by

§ 25-327(A); ¶ 6 (App. 2019) (“[T]he terms of the decree and [domestic relations order] are not subject to post-judgment modification unless the court is satisfied relief is warranted pursuant to Arizona Rule of Family Law Procedure 85(b).”).

¶ 10 (App. 2019) (explaining the existence of other possible contract terms does not invalidate the parties' agreement).

§ 25-327(A); ¶ 6 (App. 2019) (holding that the terms of a decree are not subject to post-decree modification absent a showing that relief is warranted under ARFLP 85).

§ 25-327.A (“The provisions as to property disposition may not be revoked or modified, unless the court finds the existence of conditions that justify the reopening of a judgment under the laws of this state.”); Quijada 6 ¶ 6 (App. 2019) (discussing A.R.S.

§ 25-324 seeks to equalize financial disparities between parties, ¶ 17 (App. 2019) (citing cases), and that the prevailing party is not necessarily entitled to an award, ¶ 39 (App. 2007).

§§ 25-317(F), -327(A)); ¶ 6 (App. 2019) (holding that a decree’s terms based on the parties’ agreement are not subject to modification “unless the court is satisfied relief is warranted pursuant to Arizona Rule of Family Law Procedure” (“Rule”) 85(b)).

from a judgment”); ¶ 7 (App. 2019) (reviewing denial of motion to set aside decree for abuse of discretion).

In doing so, this court will “defer to the [superior] court’s 7 KAYSER, et al. v. YOUNG Decision of the Court factual findings so long as there is competent evidence to support them.” ¶ 13 (App. 2019).

¶ 4 (App. 2018); ¶ 7 (App. 2021); –22, ¶ 13 (App. 2019).

¶ 8 (App. 2012); ¶ 5 (App. 2019).

§ 25-324(A); ¶ 15 (App. 2019).