Cited by

We review the superior court’s grant of Rule 85 relief for an abuse of discretion and will affirm “unless undisputed facts and circumstances require a contrary ruling.” (cleaned up).

We will also sustain a court’s denial of a Rule 60 motion for relief from judgment “unless ‘undisputed facts and circumstances require a contrary ruling.’” (quoting Coconino Pulp & ).

DISCUSSION ¶6 We review the denial of Rule 60 relief for an abuse of discretion and will affirm “unless undisputed facts and circumstances require a contrary ruling.” (cleaned up).

We review the court’s denial of a Rule 60(b) motion for an abuse of discretion, ¶ 8 (2018), and will affirm “unless undisputed facts and circumstances require a contrary ruling,” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

We review a court’s order granting or denying post-decree relief for an abuse of discretion, which occurs if the court commits an error of law in exercising its discretion, ¶ 23 (App. 2004).

3 We reject as unfounded Father’s contention that Mother waived or abandoned her challenge to the Rule 85 order by virtue of deficiencies in her opening brief.

We will affirm “unless undisputed facts and circumstances require a contrary ruling.” (internal quotation marks omitted).

v. Microsoft Corp., ¶ 17 (App. 2006)

Power Prods., Inc. v. CSK Auto, Inc., ¶ 10 (2016) (Rule 59); (Rule 60).

see also Old Pueblo Plastic Surgery, P.C.

(finding 3 MUNOZ v. ZEPEDA Decision of the Court excusable neglect where “the mistake .

Power Prods., Inc. v. CSK Auto, Inc., ¶ 10 (2016) (Rule 59); (Rule 60); ¶ 24 (App. 2017) (Rule 56(d)); ¶ 6 (App. 2001) (reconsideration).

We review the superior court’s denial of a Rule 60(b) motion for an abuse of discretion, ¶ 8 (2018), and will affirm “unless undisputed facts and circumstances require a 3 PRESTO AUTO v. NURUMBI Decision of the Court contrary ruling,” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).