Cited by

(“Where service of process does not comply with statutory requirements, the court does not obtain jurisdiction[.]

The superior court’s finding that Wife had actual knowledge of the proceedings did not salvage its jurisdiction, because a party’s actual knowledge of a pending lawsuit “will not operate to cure a defect in service.” with Montano v. Scottsdale Baptist Hosp., Inc., (“It is a rule of ancient and universal application that a general appearance by a party who has not been properly served has exactly the same effect as a proper, timely and valid service of process.”).

The court’s determination as to whether a change in circumstances has occurred “will not be reversed absent a clear abuse of discretion, i.e., a clear absence of evidence to support its actions.” ( ).

We “give[] great latitude to conclusions drawn by judges who observe trial behavior first hand.” ¶ 95 (2018); (appellate court “observations are limited to the transcript and we must therefore be very careful in attempting to second guess the front line trial court from our rather limited vantage point”).

The court’s determination whether a change in circumstances has occurred “will not be reversed absent a clear abuse of discretion, i.e., a clear absence of evidence to support its actions.” ( ); see also Vincent, 238 Ariz. at 155, ¶¶ 17-18.

Our observations are limited to the transcript and we must therefore be very careful in attempting to second guess the front line trial court from our rather limited appellate vantage point.”

(holding a trial court abuses its discretion where there is “a clear absence of evidence to support its actions”) ( ).

But knowledge about a pending lawsuit “will not operate to cure a defect in service.” (citations omitted).

(recognizing that the issue whether the trial court had jurisdiction to enter an earlier custody order was moot because the parties participated in later proceedings resulting in the entry of a valid order establishing custody).

Bailey v. Bailey, 3 Ariz.App.