Background
Jodee Fritz died in August 2020 after medical complications during a hospitalization at a Dignity Health hospital. Dignity contacted Fritz’s friend, Noreen Hockins, whom Fritz had identified as holding her medical power of attorney. Following those communications, a do-not-resuscitate order was entered and Fritz died shortly afterward.
Jane Andersen, as personal representative of Fritz’s estate, sued Dignity in August 2022 under Arizona’s Adult Protective Services Act, alleging that Dignity failed to verify Hockins’ authority. Dignity obtained summary judgment in May 2024 based on uncontroverted evidence that Fritz had granted Hockins medical power of attorney and signed a durable power of attorney. Andersen’s appeal from that judgment was dismissed after she missed the deadline for an opening brief.
More than a year after final judgment, Andersen moved under Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1)-(3) to set aside the summary judgment based on mistake, newly discovered evidence, and fraud. The superior court denied the motion as untimely and without merit, and awarded Dignity attorney fees under A.R.S. § 12-349.
The Court’s Holding
The Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed. Rule 60(c)(1) requires motions under Rule 60(b)(1)-(3) to be filed within six months after entry of the judgment or order. Andersen filed her motion more than a year after the summary judgment, so it was untimely; the later dismissal of her prior appeal did not restart the six-month period.
Because untimeliness resolved the request for Rule 60 relief, the court did not address Andersen’s remaining arguments for reopening the judgment. The court also upheld the superior court’s fee award, concluding that the motion lacked substantial justification and that fees were authorized under A.R.S. § 12-349.
The court denied Andersen’s appellate-fee request because she supplied no legal basis for it. It awarded Dignity a portion of its appellate attorney fees under A.R.S. § 12-349, plus taxable costs, subject to compliance with the appellate rules.
Key Takeaways
- The six-month deadline for Rule 60(b)(1)-(3) relief runs from entry of the judgment or order, not from dismissal of an appeal.
- A party cannot use a later Rule 60 motion to revive appellate issues after failing to pursue a timely appeal from the underlying judgment.
- An unsupported and untimely post-judgment motion can support sanctions under A.R.S. § 12-349 when it lacks substantial justification.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores the strict timing requirements for relief based on mistake, newly discovered evidence, or fraud under Arizona Rule 60. Litigants must calculate the deadline from the original judgment, even if related appellate proceedings later end.
It also illustrates the fee risk of pursuing an untimely post-judgment challenge without substantial justification. The memorandum decision is nonprecedential and may be cited only as authorized by Arizona Supreme Court Rule 111(c).