Cited by

Law P. 85; –82, ¶¶ 12–14 (2006).

–82, ¶¶ 10, 12–14 (2006) (“We granted review to determine whether a party may bring a separate civil action for relief, rather than file a Rule 60(c) motion, when the party alleges ownership in real property not disposed of in a dissolution decree.”) (emphasis added) (abrogated on other grounds); see also Duckstei

“We review an order granting a motion to dismiss for abuse of discretion.” ¶ 11 (2006).

4 ALVARES v. MUNGUIA Decision of the Court made in the decree shall be from the date of the decree held by the parties as tenants in common, each possessed of an undivided one-half interest.”); ¶ 16 (2006) (“The legislature also specified a remedy for [when a dissolution decree does not dispose of all community property]: Former spouses will hold the property as tenants in common.”).

Claim preclusion means “a final judgment on the merits in a prior suit involving the same parties or their privies bars a second suit based on the same claim.” ¶ 15 (2006).

¶ 11 (2006) ("We review an order granting a motion to dismiss for abuse of discretion.").

¶8 Claim preclusion, as traditionally applied in civil litigation, means that “a final judgment on the merits in a prior suit involving the same parties or their privies bars a second suit based on the same claim.” ¶ 15 (2006).

( ¶ 11 (2006); State Comp.

¶ 11 (2006); Great W. Bank v. LJC Dev., LLC, ¶ 9 (App. 2015).

DISCUSSION ¶6 Ordinarily “[w]e review an order granting a motion to dismiss for abuse of discretion,” ¶ 11 (2006), but “[d]etermining the procedure for review of administrative decisions involves the interpretation of rules and statutes, which we review de novo.” Smith v. Ariz. Citizens Clean Elections Comm’n, ¶ 18 (2006).

¶ 11 , (appellate court will “uphold dismissal only if the plaintiff would not be entitled to relief under any facts susceptible of proof in the statement of the claim”) (quotation and citation omitted).

¶ 11 (2006); Copeland v. Ariz. Veterans Mem’l Coliseum & Exposition Ctr.

Co., ¶ 14 (2008); ¶ 11 (2006).

See, ¶ 15 (2006); Ariz. R. Civ.

“We will uphold dismissal only if the plaintiff would not be entitled to relief under any facts susceptible of proof in the statement of the claim.” ¶ 11 (2006).

“We will uphold dismissal only if the plaintiffs would not be entitled to relief under any facts susceptible of proof in the statement of the claim.” ¶ 11 (2006).