Cited by

because of the adverse party’s fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct.” (citation omitted).

To obtain relief under this subsection, Barna was required to establish she had a meritorious defense and was prevented from fully presenting her defense before judgment because of Plaintiffs’ “fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct.” (citation omitted).

We view the evidence in the light most favorable to supporting the superior court’s decision, ¶ 9 (App. 2012), and uphold its decision if supported by substantial evidence

Rather, “[t]he determination of whether evidence is ‘clear and convincing’ is committed to the trial court.” Parmeter, 186 Ariz. at 655 ().

a meritorious defense, (2) that he was prevented from fully presenting before judgment, (3) because of the adverse party’s fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct.” (citation omitted).

“The determination of whether evidence is ‘clear and convincing’ is committed to the trial court,” and its findings “will be sustained on appeal as long as the record contains substantial evidence to support them.” O’Dea v. Litzenburg (Estate of Page), (citing Hopper v. Indus.

"Arizona courts give great weight to federal court interpretations of the rules of procedure.”

v. Symington, ¶ 26 n.1 (App. 2000); (a sufficient basis for denying a new trial motion may be an insufficient basis for denying rule 60(c) relief).

to catch this error” by Hooty’s counsel and “and bring it to the attention of the trial court.” ¶17 To obtain relief under Rule 60(c)(3), the movant must (1) have a meritorious claim, (2) that was not fully presented before judgment, (3) because of the adverse party’s fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct.2

(interpreting Federal Rule of Procedure 60(b)(3), which is functionally identical to Arizona’s Rule 60(c)(3)).

(quoting Anderson v. Cryovac, Inc., 862 F.2d 910, 926 (1st Cir. 1988)).

at 187, ¶ 23 , 3 P.3d at 1107 ( , ).

¶ 15 The State argues, however, , the letter gave adequate notice of the claim for penalties.

See Anderson v. Cryovac, 862 F.2d 910, 923 (1st Cir.1988); -94 , -38 (App.1994).

(“ ‘Misconduct’ within [Rule 60(c)(3) ] need not amount to fraud or misrepresentation, but may include even accidental omissions.”).

We will sustain the trial court’s judgment if any reasonable evidence supports it, , and “[t]he determination of whether evidence is ‘clear and convincing’ is committed to the trial court.”

-94 , -38 (App.1993) (to obtain relief from judgment on grounds of adverse party’s fraud, fraud must have prevented movant from presenting meritorious claim).

Lake Havasu Resort, , Ghyselinck v. Buchanan, 13 Ariz.App.