Cited by

Ariz. Const. art. 6, § 27 (“No cause shall be reversed for technical error in pleadings or proceedings when upon the whole case it shall appear that substantial justice has been done.”); ¶ 12 (App. 2000).

Mother has not shown “what additional evidence [s]he would have presented, or how it would have affected the trial court’s decision.” ¶ 13 (App. 2000).

The pleading requirement in § 25-411(L) is intended to “spare the parties and the child the cost, disruption, and potential trauma of a full modification hearing unless the petition and supporting documents show ‘adequate cause.’” ¶ 9 (App. 2000) (procedure in § 25-411(L) is intended to prevent repetitive or insubstantial petitions to modify).

–03, ¶¶ 11–12 (App. 2000) (explaining that appellant “will have great difficulty showing prejudice .

.’” ¶ 18 3 ALI v. ALI Opinion of the Court (App. 2012) ( ¶ 7 (App. 2000)).

§ 25-411(A); ¶ 9 (App. 2000).

§ 12-2101(A); ¶ 3 (App. 2000) (the denial of a motion for reconsideration may be appealable under A.R.S.

To constitute such a “special order made after final judgment,” an order (1) must involve different issues than “those that would arise from an appeal from the underlying judgment” and (2) must affect “the underlying judgment by enforcing it or staying its execution.” –27 (App. 1995); ¶ 3 (App. 2000) (quoting Arvizu).

–01, ¶¶ 3–4 (App. 2000).

The time frames and the cause requirement act as a threshold to “‘prevent repeated or insubstantial motions for modification.’” ¶ 9 (App. 2000) (quoting Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act § 410, cmt.

¶15 In addressing Wife’s subject matter jurisdiction argument, the family court ruled as follows: “Subject matter jurisdiction is the power to hear and determine cases of the general class to which the particular proceedings belong.” ¶ 7 (App. 2000) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

That statute, however, “is a prehearing procedural statute and its purpose is, in part, to prevent repeated or insubstantial motions for modification.” ¶ 11 (App. 2000) (internal quotation and citations omitted).

¶ 13 (App. 2000) (finding appellant who did not challenge court’s finding on appeal “failed to demonstrate any prejudice from the trial court’s procedure”).

¶ 4 (App. 2000) (concluding an order resolving a petition to modify a decree of dissolution is appealable as a special order after final judgment).

-01, ¶¶ 3-4 (App. 2000) (explaining when resolution of a post- judgment motion results in an appealable “special order made after final judgment”).

‘[e]rrors in preliminary procedures, such as those in § 25-411, must be addressed prior to a resolution on the merits.’” ¶ 8 (App. 2017) (-03, ¶¶ 12, 11 (App. 2000).

¶ 11 (App. 2000) ("Errors in preliminary procedures, such as those in § 25-411, must be addressed prior to a resolution on the merits.").

has passed if noncompliance is first brought to our attention on appeal from the final judgment.” ¶ 11 (App. 2000).

Sundstrom v. Flatt , , 138, ¶ 8, , 911 (App. 2017) ; In re Marriage of Dorman , , 302-03, ¶¶ 11-12, , 333-34 (App. 2000).

-01, ¶ 4 (App. 2000) (concluding a family court order is appealable as a “special order after final judgment” if it raises an issue different than that raised in the underlying dissolution decree, affects the underlying decree, and resolves all issues raised in the 1 Absent material changes from the relevant