Cited by

¶ 11 (App. 2009) (citing Hirsch v. Nat’l Van Lines, Inc., ).

Hirsch v. Hirsch, Nat'l Van Lines, Inc.

An appeal concerning a Rule 60 denial limits this Court’s review to only those questions “raised by the motion.” Hirsch v. Nat’l Van Lines, Inc.

Hirsch v. Nat’l Van Lines, Inc.

See Hirsch v. Nat’l Van Lines, Inc., (noting an appeal from a default judgment is permissible when the default was not authorized by Rule 55 or when there are questions regarding personal jurisdiction); (denial of motion to set aside default judgment “is appealable as a ‘special order made after f

¶9 The “general rule” that there is no appeal from a default judgment and that the defaulting party’s “primary remedy” is a motion for relief from judgment, Hirsch v. Nat’l Van Lines, Inc., is a prudential doctrine, not a jurisdictional bar.

Hirsch v. Nat'l Van Lines, Inc.

These matters, however, rest entirely within the trial court’s discretion and will not be overturned on appeal unless a clear abuse of discretion has been shown.” Hirsch v. Nat’l Van Lines, Inc.

See Hirsch v. Nat’l Van Lines, Inc., (A reasonably prudent person would not fail to answer or at least request more time from the court.).

This Court does not inquire whether the superior court was substantively correct in entering the default judgment, Hirsch v. Nat’l Van Lines, Inc., but instead, “defer[s] to the superior court’s factual findings and will not set them aside unless they are clearly erroneous,” ¶ 9 (App. 2018).

As a result, “any doubts should be resolved in favor of the party seeking to set aside the default judgment.” Hirsch v. Nat’l Van Lines, Inc.

¶9 A default judgment may be set aside based on excusable neglect if the defaulting party shows “(1) excusable neglect that explains the failure to timely defend, (2) a prompt and diligent request for relief from the judgment, and (3) a meritorious defense to the underlying complaint.” Laveen Meadows, 249 Ariz. at 83, ¶ 7 (citing Hirsch v. Nat’l Van Lines, Inc., ); see also Ariz. R. Civ.

¶22 “The scope of an appeal from a denial of a Rule 60 motion is restricted to the questions raised by the motion to set aside.” Hirsch v. Nat’l Van Lines, Inc.

A superior court’s jurisdiction over a person is established by “the fact of service and the resulting notice.” Hirsch v. Nat’l Van Lines, Inc.

See Hirsch v. Nat’l Van Lines, Inc.

Hirsch v. Nat’l Van Lines, Inc.

A superior court’s personal jurisdiction over a party is established by “the fact of service and the resulting notice.” Hirsch v. Nat’l Van Lines, Inc.

Van Lines, Inc., (“The scope of an appeal from a denial of a Rule 60 motion is restricted to the questions raised by the motion to set aside and does not extend to review of whether the trial court was substantively correct in entering the judgment from which relief was sought.”).

I. Standard of Review ¶10 “At the outset we note that it is a highly desirable legal objective that cases be decided on their merits and that any doubts should be resolved in favor of the party seeking to set aside the default judgment.” Hirsch v. Nat’l Van Lines, Inc.

DISCUSSION ¶6 “The scope of an appeal from a denial of a Rule 60 motion is restricted to the questions raised by the motion to set aside and does not extend to a review of whether the trial court was substantively correct in entering the judgment from which relief was sought.” Hirsch v. Nat’l Van Lines, Inc.

Hirsch v. Nat’l Van Lines, Inc., CAMPBELL v. MURPHY Decision of the Court 311 (1983).

Hirsch v. Nat'l Van Lines, Inc.

But, “[t]he scope of an appeal from a denial of a Rule 60 motion is restricted to the questions raised by the motion to set aside and does not extend to a review of whether the trial court was substantively correct in entering the judgment from which relief was sought.” Hirsch v. Nat’l Van Lines, Inc.

rest entirely within the trial court’s discretion and will not be overturned on appeal unless a clear abuse of discretion has been shown.” Hirsch v. Nat’l Van Lines, Inc.

Hirsch v. Nat'l Van Lines, Inc.