484 P.3d 650
Ariz. Ct. App.2021Background
- Parties divorced by consent decree in 2009; extensive post-decree litigation followed.
- In May 2018 the family court entered a judgment awarding Father over $59,000 in attorneys’ fees on a post-decree application. Mother did not appeal within 30 days.
- Mother later filed a Rule 85 (relief from judgment) motion (Aug 2019); the court denied it in a December 2019 minute entry and later awarded Father $2,825 for responding (Jan 14, 2020).
- Mother filed a Rule 83 motion to amend the December 2019 minute entry; the court denied it (Jan 21, 2020) and issued clarifying minute entries (Feb 4, 2020).
- In April 2020 the court signed an order including Rule 78(c) language purporting to make the matters final; Mother filed a notice of appeal two days later seeking review of the May 2018 judgment and subsequent post-judgment rulings.
- Father moved to dismiss for lack of appellate jurisdiction; central legal questions were whether post-decree rulings are appealable under A.R.S. § 12-2101(A)(2) without Rule 78 finality language and whether Mother’s Rule 83 filing tolled the appeal period.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a family court’s resolution of a post-decree motion is appealable without Rule 78 certification | Mother: appeal time did not start until April 2020 Rule 78(c) order; appealable as a final judgment under § 12-2101(A)(1) | Father: post-decree rulings are "special orders made after final judgment" under § 12-2101(A)(2) and are immediately appealable even without Rule 78 language | Court: Post-decree rulings that fully resolve a motion are appealable under § 12-2101(A)(2) without Rule 78 certification; inquiry is substantive, not form. |
| Whether an order denying a Rule 85 motion is appealable before Rule 78 certification | Mother: denial was not final until the later Rule 78(c) order | Father: the denial completely resolved the Rule 85 motion and thus was appealable as a special post-decree order | Court: A Rule 85 ruling that fully resolves post-decree relief is appealable under § 12-2101(A)(2); Mother’s time to appeal ran from the date the motion was fully resolved. |
| Whether Mother’s Rule 83 motion tolled or extended the 30-day appeal period | Mother: her Rule 83 motion to amend the minute entry extended the appeal period under ARCAP 9(e)(1) | Father: Rule 83 is limited to motions that amend Rule 78(b)/(c) judgments and cannot extend the appeal period for non-Rule-78 orders | Court: Rule 83 applies only to judgments entered under Rule 78(b) or (c); Mother’s Rule 83 was improper for the December 2019 minute entry and did not extend the appeal period. |
| Timeliness of Mother’s notice of appeal | Mother: her April 2020 appeal was timely after court’s Rule 78(c) order | Father: appeals from the May 2018 and subsequent post-decree orders were untimely | Held: Mother failed to timely appeal the May 2018 judgment, the December 2019 denial of Rule 85, and the Jan 14, 2020 fee award; appellate jurisdiction lacking and appeal dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Brumett v. MGA Home Healthcare, LLC, 240 Ariz. 421 (App. 2016) (examining limits of appellate jurisdiction and interplay with rule-based finality)
- Arvizu v. Fernandez, 183 Ariz. 224 (App. 1995) (defining "special order made after final judgment" requires different issues and effect on enforcement of the judgment)
- In re the Marriage of Dorman, 198 Ariz. 298 (App. 2000) (applying Arvizu standard to family-law post-decree orders)
- In re the Marriage of Dougall, 234 Ariz. 2 (App. 2013) (Rule 85 rulings on post-decree matters are appealable as special post-judgment orders)
- M & M Auto Storage Pool, Inc. v. Chem. Waste Mgmt., Inc., 164 Ariz. 139 (App. 1990) (ruling on motion to set aside final judgment is appealable under § 12-2101(A)(2))
- Williams v. Williams, 228 Ariz. 160 (App. 2011) (post-decree orders that fully resolve petitions are appealable)
- Desmond v. J.W. Hancock Enterprises, Inc., 123 Ariz. 474 (1979) (Civil Rule 59 context; distinguished on Rule differences)
- Tripati v. Forwith, 223 Ariz. 81 (App. 2009) (Civil Rule 59/Civil Rule 60 interplay; distinguished from family-rule framework)
- McHazlett v. Otis Eng’g Corp., 133 Ariz. 530 (1982) (if a trial court lacks jurisdiction to issue an order, an appeal gives appellate court only jurisdiction to dismiss)