Macdonald v. Macdonald

Argument summary

AI-generated — not an official transcript or court record.

1. Appellant's counsel argued that appellate jurisdiction requires the order resolving a motion to amend to be a final judgment under ARS 12-2101(A)(1), necessitating Rule 78(B) or (C) certification for enforceability.
2. Appellant's counsel emphasized that without clear finality language, pro se litigants cannot determine when an order is appealable or enforceable, particularly regarding garnishments and custody registrations.
3. Respondent's counsel contended that the original decree was the final judgment, and the subsequent ruling on the motion to amend constitutes a special order after final judgment appealable under ARS 12-2101(A)(2).
4. Respondent's counsel explained that Rule 9(E) starts the 30-day appellate clock upon entry of a signed written order disposing of a time-extending motion, allowing appeal of both the underlying judgment and any new issues in the ruling.
5. The court questioned whether the order on the motion to amend fits the definition of a judgment under Rule 78(A) as a decision resolving a petition listed in Rule 23(A).
6. Appellant's counsel distinguished motions to amend from Rule 85 motions, arguing that motions to amend raise identical issues to the underlying judgment and thus do not qualify as special orders under ARS 12-2101(A)(2) per Arvizu.

Recordings

1. Recording · PT48M34S · Captions available