Duckstein v. Wolf, 230 Ariz. 227

Husband and Wife (both attorneys) married in 2001; Wife filed a pro se petition for dissolution in March 2010 without a verification statement.
Wife also filed an acceptance of service waiving formal service, allegedly signed by Husband.
The trial court entered a default dissolution decree on May 4, 2010, incorporating a property settlement agreement bearing signatures of both parties.
In March 2011, Husband moved to set aside the decree, alleging fraud on the court and forgery of signatures; he claimed lack of service and lack of verification.
Wife asserted Husband signed the acceptance of service and settlement agreement; she supplied affidavits and forensic reports supporting authenticity.
The trial court denied the motion to set aside; the denial was based on timeliness and lack of proven grounds under Rule 85(C).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether lack of verification deprives the court of jurisdiction.	Husband argues petition verification is jurisdictional under A.R.S. § 25-314.	Duckstein contends verification is not jurisdictional and can be cured or deemed unnecessary.	Verification defect is procedural and does not deprive jurisdiction.
Whether defective notarization of an acceptance of service voids the decree.	Husband contends lack of proper notarization bars personal jurisdiction.	Duckstein argues service can be proven by other evidence; notarization defect alone does not void judgment.	Notarization defect does not per se render the decree void; evidentiary hearing required on disputed service issues.
Whether the trial court should have held an evidentiary hearing on contested facts.	Husband requests an evidentiary hearing to resolve signature and service disputes.	Duckstein asserts no hearing was necessary if documents show consent and execution.	The court erred by ruling without an evidentiary hearing where material facts were disputed.
Whether timely relief under Rule 85(C) can be granted for voidness or fraud claims.	Husband claims voidness or fraud justifies relief under Rule 85(C).	Duckstein argues timeliness and evidence do not support relief.	On remand, issues of voidness/fraud must be revisited with evidentiary proceedings.

In re Shaffer’s Estate, 203 Kan. 264 (Kan. 1969) (verification is a mere irregularity, not jurisdictional)
Preparatory Temple & House of Prayer for All People, Inc. v. Seery, 81 N.J. Super. 429 (N.J.Sup. Ct. Ch. Div.1963) (verification is procedural and does not vitiate jurisdiction)
Smith v. State, 918 So.2d 141 (Ala.Crim.App.2005) (verification generally not indispensable to jurisdiction)
In re Triscari Children, 109 N.C.App. 285, 426 S.E.2d 435 (N.C. App. 1993) (verification mandatory for dissolution actions; impact on jurisdiction considered)
Hibdon v. Hibdon, 589 S.W.2d 646 (Mo.Ct.App.1979) (verification requirements; jurisdictional impact)
Brandt v. Daman Trailer Sales, Inc., 116 Ariz. 421, 569 P.2d 851 (App.1977) (return of service evidence; service sufficient to confer jurisdiction)
Cockerham v. Zikratch, 127 Ariz. 230, 619 P.2d 739 (App.1980) (service and jurisdiction considerations; affidavits as evidence)
Blair v. Burgener, 226 Ariz. 213, 245 P.3d 898 (App.2010) (burden on movant to show entitlement to relief under Rule 60(b) similar standards)
Miller v. Nat’l Franchise S., Inc., 167 Ariz. 403, 807 P.2d 1139 (App.1991) (service challenges and relief standards under Rule 60(b))
Springfield Credit Union v. Johnson, 123 Ariz. 319, 599 P.2d 772 (1979) (timeliness and grounds for relief from judgment)