Cited by

¶ 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).

ment for “any other reason justifying relief”); Skydive Ariz., ¶ 25 (App. 2015) (providing that relief under a catch-all provision of the analogous civil rule is available when other provisions do not apply and, under the totality of the facts, “extraordinary circumstances of hardship or injustice justifying relief” exist (citation omitted)); ¶ 6 n.3 (App. 2019) (holding that a party need not a file specific motion to invoke Rule 85).