Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Marriage of Birt v. Birt, 96 P.3d 544.

47 citing documents.

Mikalacki v. Rubezic Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Mikalacki v. Rubezic Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
In Re the Marriage of Duvall Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
In Re the Marriage of Duvall Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
Nielsen v. Nielsen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Nielsen v. Nielsen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Goodhope v. Goodhope Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Goodhope v. Goodhope Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
¶ 27 (App. 2004) (holding modification of a decree may be appropriate "where a party files a bankruptcy petition to discharge debts allocated to that party under a divorce decree").
Sembower v. Sembower Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Sembower v. Sembower Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
§ 25-327.A; –53, ¶ 26 (App. 2004) (discussing the form of relief envisioned by A.R.S.
Gray v. Gray Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Gray v. Gray Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
¶ 11 (App. 2004) (explaining newly discovered evidence “is evidence which existed at the time of trial”).
Montemurro v. Montemurro Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Montemurro v. Montemurro Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Snook v. Aguilar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Snook v. Aguilar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
-53, ¶ 26 (App. 2004) (“A trial court can modify a division of property in a dissolution decree by utilizing Rule 60(c)(6).”1), Husband requested in part that the “Court modify the disposition of community property in the Decree to take into account the 1 Former Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 60(c) is now R
Cavness v. Wilson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Cavness v. Wilson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Murrell v. Scott Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Murrell v. Scott Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
¶ 26, n.6 (App. 2004); –93 (1977) (superior court may not use nominal awards to enable the court to retain jurisdiction to modify a maintenance award in the future).
Quijada v. Quijada 437 P.3d 876 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Quijada v. Quijada 437 P.3d 876 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Law P. 85(b)(5); ¶ 19 (App. 2004) (citing DeWeerth v. Baldinger, 38 F.3d 1266, 1276 (2d Cir. 1994)).
Ridley v. Ridley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Ridley v. Ridley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Evers v. Rose Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Evers v. Rose Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Sec., Inc., ); ¶ 22 (App. 2004) ().
Reade v. King Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Reade v. King Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶ 9, (appellate court reviews family court order denying motion to vacate for abuse of discretion).
Olade v. Olade Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Olade v. Olade Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
- 52, ¶¶ 22-26, -50 (App. 2004) (holding that superior court erred by refusing to reopen dissolution decree under Ariz. R. Civ.
Rinegar v. Rinegar 290 P.3d 1208 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Rinegar v. Rinegar 290 P.3d 1208 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
in addition to those circumstances set out in clauses [85(C)(1)(a)-(e)]” to obtain relief from a judgment); -51, ¶¶ 25-26 , -53 (App.2004) (husband’s declaration of bankruptcy effectively destroyed the court’s equitable distribution of community debts and was a proper basis to grant relief under A.R.S.
Ramsay v. WHEELER-RAMSAY 232 P.3d 1249 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Ramsay v. WHEELER-RAMSAY 232 P.3d 1249 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Andrew R. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 224 P.3d 950 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Andrew R. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 224 P.3d 950 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
“However, a Rule 60(e)(6) motion cannot be premised on a ground provided for by the first five subsections of the rule.” Fry, 213 Ariz. at 73 n. 3, ¶ 13, 138 P.3d at 1200 n. 3 ( ¶ 22 , ); accord Travers, 192 Ariz. at 336, ¶ 24, 965 P.2d at 70 .
Minjares v. State 219 P.3d 264 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Minjares v. State 219 P.3d 264 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
¶ 9 , (we review denial of Rule 60(c) relief for abuse of discretion).
Fry v. Garcia 138 P.3d 1197 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Fry v. Garcia 138 P.3d 1197 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Waldren v. State Ex Rel. Department of Economic Security 131 P.3d 1067 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Waldren v. State Ex Rel. Department of Economic Security 131 P.3d 1067 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
We generally apply an abuse of discretion standard when reviewing a trial court’s denial of relief under Rule 60(c), ¶ 9 , and also when reviewing trial court decisions on modification or termination of spousal maintenance and child support.
Marriage of Kohler v. Kohler 118 P.3d 621 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Marriage of Kohler v. Kohler 118 P.3d 621 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
¶ 31 , (holding that because property division established in a decree was vacated, trial court could reconsider issue of spousal maintenance).
State v. Jackson 113 P.3d 112 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
State v. Jackson 113 P.3d 112 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
¶ 8 , (finding jurisdiction for denial of Rule 60(c) motion under § 12-2101(0).
Kelley v. Abdo 105 P.3d 167 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005