Cited by

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).

(citing Coconino Pulp & ).

2 HOVANNISIAN v. HOVANNISIAN Decision of the Court present,” and “counting the wrong number of days toward a deadline to file a Notice of Appeal” is not excusable neglect “without any additional circumstances as in”

(reviewing order entered under Ariz. R. Civ.

Accordingly, we review the superior court’s ruling for an abuse of its extensive discretion and will affirm “unless ‘undisputed facts and circumstances require a contrary ruling.’” (citation omitted).

See Waltner v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., ¶ 24 (App. 2013) (applying the abuse of discretion standard to a motion for new trial); (applying the abuse of discretion standard to a motion to vacate).

(Rule 60); ¶ 2 (App. 2005) (Rule 59).

Thus, a party’s diligence—or lack thereof— is the “final arbiter of whether mistake or neglect is excusable.”

(explaining that appellate courts will affirm the trial court’s decision even if the court “reached the right result for the wrong reason”); see also A.R.S.

(“We recognize the obligation of appellate courts to affirm where any reasonable view of the facts and law might support the judgment of the trial court.”); ¶ 25 (App. 2018).

-20, ¶ 4 (App. 2016) (), but “proper service under the rule is a legal question of personal jurisdiction which we review de novo,” ¶ 9 (App. 2018) ( ¶ 19 (App. 2012), and Ezell, 224 Ariz. at 536, ¶ 15).

-29 (1985) (explaining that the standard of review for an order granting post- judgment relief is abuse of discretion).

(“[O]n appeal from denial of Rule 60(c) relief, the trial court will be sustained unless ‘undisputed facts and circumstances require a contrary ruling .

Even so, we will affirm the court’s judgment if it “reached the right result for the wrong reason.”

Under this standard of review, we will “affirm where any reasonable view of the facts and law might support the judgment of the trial court.”

-32 (1985) (citing Coconino Pulp & ).

v. Geyler, (analyzing the previous version of Rule 60(b)).