Cited by

Magee, 206 Ariz. at 591, ¶ 8 n.1; ¶ 38 (App. 2004).

(“[I]t is a settled principle that one spouse cannot, by invoking a condition wholly within his control, defeat the community interest of the other spouse.”) (citation omitted); ¶ 37 (App. 2004) (trial court may modify a dissolution decree when an ex-spouse attempts to prevent the other spouse from receiving the benefits of property awarded in divorce).

¶ 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").

§ 25-327.A; –53, ¶ 26 (App. 2004) (discussing the form of relief envisioned by A.R.S.

¶ 11 (App. 2004) (explaining newly discovered evidence “is evidence which existed at the time of trial”).

-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

¶ 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).

Law P. 85(b)(5); ¶ 19 (App. 2004) (citing DeWeerth v. Baldinger, 38 F.3d 1266, 1276 (2d Cir. 1994)).

Sec., Inc., ); ¶ 22 (App. 2004) ().

¶ 9, (appellate court reviews family court order denying motion to vacate for abuse of discretion).

- 52, ¶¶ 22-26, -50 (App. 2004) (holding that superior court erred by refusing to reopen dissolution decree under Ariz. R. Civ.

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.

“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 .

¶ 9 , (we review denial of Rule 60(c) relief for abuse of discretion).

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.

¶ 31 , (holding that because property division established in a decree was vacated, trial court could reconsider issue of spousal maintenance).

¶ 8 , (finding jurisdiction for denial of Rule 60(c) motion under § 12-2101(0).