Cited by

¶16 In ¶ 18 (2007), the Arizona Supreme Court held that A.R.S.

But procedural rules “cannot enlarge the court’s authority beyond that granted by statute.” ¶ 40 (2019) ( ¶¶ 20-21 (2007)).

“In Arizona, dissolution of marriage proceedings are creatures of statute, and jurisdiction to decide such cases is conferred on the courts by the legislature.” In re Marriage of 4 ¶ 8 (2007); (“Title 25 defines the boundaries of a dissolution court’s jurisdiction, and the court may not exceed its jurisdiction even when exercising its equitable powers.”).

(contrasting legislative decision to change an existing statute from legislative decision to merely clarify the statute); Clarify, Random House Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary 380 (2001) (“to make (an idea, statement, etc.) clear or intelligible; to free from ambiguity”); see also, ¶ 15 (2007) (citing legislative fact sheet in concluding amendment was not intended to change statute but merely to clarify it).

¶¶ 20–21 (2007) (stating that a court rule “may address only procedural matters” and cannot “abridge, enlarge or modify substantive rights of a litigant” (quoting A.R.S.

See In re Marriage of Waldren , , ¶ 6

¶7 “In Arizona, dissolution of marriage proceedings are creatures of statute, and jurisdiction to decide such cases is conferred on the courts by the legislature.” ¶ 8 (2007); see also A.R.S.

¶ 10 (App. 2007); ¶ 6 (2007).

6 *423 See In re Marriage of Waldren , , 177, ¶¶ 20-21, , 1218 (2007) (holding that court-promulgated rules may address only procedural matters and may not abridge, enlarge, or modify substantive statutory rights even when exercising equitable powers); see also Foster v. Weir , , 195-96, ¶ 9, , 484-85 (App. 2006) (h

Fenn v. Fenn , , 87, , 132 (App. 1993) ; In re Marriage of Waldren , , 175, ¶ 8, , 1216 (2007) ("In Arizona, dissolution of marriage proceedings are creatures of statute, and jurisdiction to decide such cases is conferred on the courts by the legislature.").

Because application of these equitable defenses did not require the court to modify the decree, the court erred in concluding it lacked jurisdiction to consider the agreement pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) section 25-317(G)1 and P.3d 1214 (2007).

decrees of dissolution generally remain subject to the court’s continuing jurisdiction to modify” provisions for maintenance, support, and property disposition, ¶ 8 (2007) (citing A.R.S.

¶7 The superior court found Wife had committed three instances of fraud on the court that authorized it to modify the non- modifiable spousal maintenance term of the decree pursuant to n.3, ¶ 10, n.3 3 McNEIL v. HOSKYNS Opinion of the Court (2007).

§ 25-327(A); ¶ 8, (“If the parties’ circumstances substantially change, courts generally may modify or terminate support .

¶ 12 “In Arizona, dissolution of marriage proceedings are creatures of statute, and jurisdiction to decide such cases is conferred on the courts by the legislature.” ¶ 8 , see A.R.S.

¶ 24, ¶ 20, (“Court rules may not ‘abridge, enlarge, or modify substantive rights of a litigant.’” (quoting A.R.S.

¶ 20 , cf. Emmett McLoughlin Realty, ¶ 18 , (“passage of a zoning ordinance is the exercise of a legislative function”); , (“Defining crimes and fixing

See In re Waldren , (considering senate fact sheet as evidence of intent); , (same).

¶ 15 , (utilizing legislative history to support a conclusion drawn from the language of the statute).