Cited by

City of Phoenix v. Geyler , , 329, , 1079 (1985).

¶35 Generally, the superior court has broad discretion when considering motions under Rule 60(c), and we will sustain the superior court’s decision unless “undisputed facts and circumstances require a contrary ruling.”

This rule is followed even if the trial court has reached the right result for the wrong reason.” (citation omitted).

The court’s exercise of discretion, though, must be supported “by facts or sound legal policy.” –29 (1985).

This test has been applied on a case-by-case basis in cases of clerical and secretarial error, and legal error where the state of the law is “muddled or confused.” –40 (App. 1994) (noting case-by-case application and that neglect may be excusable if due to legal error in certain cases); (declaring a lawyer’s misreading of date on minute entry was a type of clerical error constituting excusable neglect); Coconino, 83 Ariz. at 121 (a secretary’s failure to distribute calendar sheet containing remi

v. Geyler, -32 (1985) (citing Coconino Pulp & ).

v. Geyler, -32 (1985) (citing Coconino Pulp & ).

We review the denial of a Rule 60(c) motion for abuse of discretion, ¶ 15 (App. 2010), and will affirm the trial court’s ruling unless “undisputed facts and circumstances require a contrary ruling.”

The Department also cites authority for the proposition that we may affirm when “any reasonable view of the facts and law might support the judgment.”

v. Geyler, (explaining that appellate courts have the obligation “to affirm where any reasonable view of the facts and law might support the judgment of the trial court .

-29, -79 (1985); ¶ 13, (superior court “abuse[s] its discretion by misapplying the law”).

¶13 The purpose of Rule 60(c) “is to provide relief for those mistakes and errors which inevitably occur despite diligent efforts to comply with the rules.”