Francene Vincent v. Patrick Shanovich, CV-17-0175-PR

Vincent and Shanovich divorced in 2002; the dissolution decree awarded Vincent one-half of Shanovich’s ASRS retirement "as of the date of filing the Petition for Dissolution" (Aug. 25, 2000), to be reflected in a QDRO.
A stipulated QDRO entered in 2004 did not tie the benefit calculation to the petition date for regular retirement; instead it awarded Vincent 50% of the annuity payable at retirement, but referenced Aug. 25, 2000 for account-balance/death-benefit scenarios.
No party appealed the QDRO at the time; in 2015, as Shanovich prepared to retire, ASRS told him the QDRO entitled Vincent to half his total pension at retirement, not half earned by Aug. 25, 2000.
Shanovich moved under Ariz. R. Fam. Law P. 85(A) to correct a clerical error in the QDRO; the family court denied the motion, finding the decree and QDRO clear and treating the claim as a judgmental error.
The court of appeals dismissed Shanovich’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction, reasoning the issue could have been raised on a direct appeal from the QDRO; the Arizona Supreme Court granted review to decide whether appeals from Rule 85(A) rulings are authorized.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether an order denying a Rule 85(A) motion is appealable as a "special order made after final judgment" under A.R.S. § 12-2101(A)(2)	Shanovich: The denial is a special post-judgment order because it raises whether the QDRO contains a clerical error that affects enforcement of the judgment	Vincent: The motion effectively attacks the merits of the QDRO and raises issues that could have been raised on direct appeal, so the court of appeals lacks jurisdiction	The Supreme Court held such orders are "special orders made after final judgment" and the court of appeals has jurisdiction to review them
Whether the court of appeals should determine whether the claimed error is clerical or judgmental	Shanovich: Court of appeals may decide whether the QDRO fails to reflect the trial court’s intent (a clerical error)	Vincent: The claim is a judgmental error about the QDRO’s substantive terms, not a clerical mistake	The Supreme Court directed the court of appeals to decide the merits — if clerical error exists, reverse and remand for correction; if judgmental, affirm denial of Rule 85(A) relief

Musa v. Adrian, 130 Ariz. 311 (1981) (appellate jurisdiction governed by statute absent constitutional provision)
Reidy v. O’Malley Lumber Co., 92 Ariz. 130 (1962) (appealability requires issues differ from those on direct appeal)
Arvizu v. Fernandez, 183 Ariz. 224 (1995) (orders must affect judgment or its enforcement to be appealable)
Ace Auto. Prods., Inc. v. Van Duyne, 156 Ariz. 140 (1987) (distinction between clerical and judgmental errors; Rule 60(a) civil analogue)
Crowe v. Hickman’s Egg Ranch, Inc., 202 Ariz. 113 (2002) (failure to raise an issue below waives it on appeal)