Cited by

Johnson and Gravino, ¶ 26 (App. 2012) (explaining that arguments that are not raised in an opening brief are generally waived).

¶11 First, Husband waived this argument by failing to address it in his opening brief, ¶ 26 (App. 2012), or cite evidence to support it, see J.W.

¶ 9 (App. 2024) (“[A]n appeal generally divests the trial court of jurisdiction to proceed except in furtherance of the appeal.”); ¶ 13 (App. 2012) (observing that once an appeal has commenced, jurisdiction does not revest in the trial court until our mandate issues).

See id.; ¶ 8 (App. 2012) (“[A] notice of appeal is premature if there are any unresolved claims when the notice is filed[,] and all premature notices of appeal are ineffective and a nullity.”).

This court has “an independent duty to determine [its] own jurisdiction, which is prescribed by statute,” and has “no authority to entertain an appeal over which [it does] not have jurisdiction.” ¶ 5 (App. 2012) (citations omitted).

¶ 6 (App. 2012) (citation omitted).

In general, a superior court is divested of jurisdiction upon the filing of a notice of appeal, but this rule “is not absolute” and there are many “well established exceptions.” ¶ 7 (App. 2012) (internal quotations omitted).

See Cohen, 215 Ariz. at 66, ¶ 11 (a decree is ambiguous if it "can reasonably be construed to have more than one meaning") ( ¶ 21 (App. 2005)); ¶¶ 16-17 (App. 2012).

¶ 9 (App. 2012); (appellate courts decide debatable issues of an order’s appealability).

A decree is ambiguous if it “can reasonably be construed to have more than one meaning.” ¶ 16 (App. 2012) ( ¶ 21 (App. 2005)).

See In re Marriage of Johnson and Gravino , , ¶ 5, , 505 (App. 2012).

¶ 26 (App. 2017) (finding claims waived when issues are not pursued before the trial court); ¶ 25 (App. 2012) (same).

See, , 341 ¶ 6, , In re Marriage of Johnson & Gravino, , 230 ¶ 5

See, ¶ 6 (2014); ¶ 5 (App. 2012).

¶ 16 (App. 2012) (“A decree is ambiguous only when [its language] can reasonably be construed to have more than one meaning.”) (citation omitted).

Cohen, 215 Ariz. at 66 ¶ 11; ¶ 16 (App. 2012) (“First, we must determine if the decree is ambiguous.”).

“We review the trial court’s interpretation of an existing decree of dissolution de novo.” ¶ 10, (citation omitted); ¶ 15

The court further concluded that the notice of appeal did not divest it of jurisdiction, P.3d 504 (App. 2012).