Background
The superior court entered a decree dissolving the marriage of Corieanne MacDonald and Scott MacDonald on January 21, 2025. The decree divided the parties’ property and debts, denied spousal maintenance, and denied both parties’ requests for attorney fees and costs. It also contained Rule 78(c) language identifying it as a final judgment.
Scott timely moved under Arizona Rule of Family Law Procedure 83 to alter or amend the decree’s treatment of a Re/Max business and a CalPERS retirement account. The superior court denied that motion in a signed order entered May 5. Scott filed his notice of appeal on June 17, after the court entered a June 16 order lifting a stay and again stating that the decree was final and appealable. The court of appeals dismissed the appeal as untimely.
The Court’s Holding
The Arizona Supreme Court held that the May 5 signed order denying Scott’s Rule 83 motion started the 30-day period for filing a notice of appeal under Arizona Rule of Civil Appellate Procedure 9(e)(1)(C). Because Scott did not appeal until June 17, his notice was untimely, and the court of appeals lacked jurisdiction.
The Court rejected Scott’s argument that the May 5 order required Rule 78(b) or (c) finality language. The dissolution decree was the Rule 78(a)(1) judgment; the order denying the motion to alter or amend was not a second judgment. Its incomplete reference to Rule 78(b) therefore had no legal effect, and the June 16 order did not restart or extend the appeal period. The Court affirmed the dismissal and denied Scott’s request for attorney fees.
Key Takeaways
- A timely Rule 83 motion suspends the deadline to appeal a family-court judgment, but the 30-day period begins when the clerk enters a signed written order disposing of that motion.
- An order denying a Rule 83 motion and leaving the existing judgment unchanged is not itself a second judgment requiring Rule 78(b) or (c) finality language.
- A later order restating the original decree’s finality does not restart an appellate deadline that began when the Rule 83 motion was resolved.
Why It Matters
The decision identifies a clear deadline for Arizona family-law litigants seeking appellate review after a motion to alter or amend. Counsel must calculate the appeal period from entry of the signed order disposing of the Rule 83 motion rather than wait for additional finality language or a later administrative order.
A timely appeal may challenge both the underlying decree and the denial of the Rule 83 motion. Treating the post-judgment denial as a separate judgment, the Court explained, would create duplicative judgments, appeals, and deadlines involving the same issues.