NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION.

UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL

AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.

IN THE

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF ARIZONA, ex rel. DES

ALEXA NICOLE ROWLAND, Petitioners/Appellees, 

v.

CHRISTOPHER ARMANDO CASTORENA, 

Respondent/Appellant. 

No. 1 CA-CV 21-0741 FC 

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. FC2017-095822 

The Honorable Paula A. Williams, Judge Pro Tempore

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Tucson

By Jennifer R. Blum

Counsel for Petitioner/Appellee, DES

Pascua Yaqui Legal Services, Guadalupe

By Tim D. Coker

Counsel for Respondent/Appellant

FILED 9-13-2022
STATE, et al. v. CASTORENA

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Vice Chief Judge David B. Gass delivered the decision of the court, in which 

Presiding Judge Samuel A. Thumma and Judge Cynthia J. Bailey joined.

G A S S, Vice Chief Judge:

¶1 Christopher Castorena appeals the superior court family 

division’s denial of his motion to vacate a default judgment, entered in 2017,

imposing child support obligations, claiming it was “void for lack of 

service.” We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 In September 2017, the Arizona Department of Economic 

Security (ADES), petitioned to establish Castorena’s paternity and sought 

an order for child support on behalf of child’s mother. ADES filed a 

certificate of service stating Castorena’s mother timely accepted service on 

his behalf. In response to Castorena’s later assertion he had not lived at his 

mother’s home since 1998, ADES countered he had provided her address 

to the State more recently in a different child support matter.

¶3 Castorena did not appear in response to the September 2017 

petition, resulting in a December 2017 default judgment. That judgment 

established Castorena was the father and awarded the child’s mother $657

per month in child support and nine months of arrearages, to be paid off at 

no less than $50 per month. 

¶4 In May 2019, the State filed a notice of simultaneous 

proceeding which conferred jurisdiction in the juvenile court for 

“establishing, suspending, modifying, or terminating a child support order 

for current support.” The family division retained jurisdiction over child 

support arrears. Later that month, mother petitioned the family division to 

enforce child support and child support arrears. At the July 2019 hearing 

on that petition, mother, Castorena, and the State appeared. The State told 

the family division Castorena “indicated that he was not originally served 

with the [2017] establishment paperwork.” Castorena did not object based 

on lack of personal jurisdiction in the 2017 judgment. Castorena 

acknowledged accepting service of the May 2019 petition and agreed to pay 

monthly child support arrears. In July 2019, the family division entered an 
STATE, et al. v. CASTORENA

Decision of the Court

3

enforcement judgment affirming Castorena pay $657 in child support, 

tacitly affirming the arrearage award, and increasing the arrears payment 

to $99 per month. In substance, that 2019 judgment, entered when the 

family division had personal jurisdiction over Castorena, affirmed the 2017 

default judgment. No party appealed the 2019 judgment.

¶5 In 2021, Castorena moved to vacate the December 2017 

default judgment, claiming it was “void for lack of service.” At an 

evidentiary hearing, the family division heard testimony about service on 

Castorena in 2017 and denied the motion as untimely. Castorena timely 

appealed. This court has jurisdiction under article VI, section 9, of the 

Arizona Constitution, and A.R.S. §§ 12-120.21.A.1 and 12-2101.A.2.

ANALYSIS

¶6 Castorena argues the family division erred in denying his 

motion to vacate the December 2017 judgment because of insufficient 

service of process. This court reviews de novo whether the superior court 

has personal jurisdiction over Castorena. See Ruffino v. Lokosky, 245 Ariz. 

165, 168, ¶ 9 (App. 2018). For a court to have personal jurisdiction over a 

defendant, proper service of process is essential. Id. at ¶ 10. The superior 

court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a party who has made a 

general appearance by “tak[ing] any action, other than objecting to personal 

jurisdiction, that recognizes the case is pending in court.” Kline v. Kline, 221 

Ariz. 564, 569, ¶ 18 (App. 2009); see also State ex rel. Dep’t of Econ. Sec. v. 

Burton, 205 Ariz. 27, 29, ¶ 8 (App. 2003). A defendant who proceeds to trial 

on the merits and obtains relief without raising the question of personal 

jurisdiction waives any personal jurisdiction defense. Nat’l Homes Corp. v. 

Totem Mobile Home Sales, Inc., 140 Ariz. 434, 437–38 (App. 1984).

¶7 Without regard to the proceedings resulting in the 2017 

judgment, Castorena voluntarily appeared at the enforcement hearing 

resulting in the 2019 judgment. At that time, Castorena accepted service of 

the May 2019 petition, discussed the amount of child support arrears to be 

set, and agreed to pay it. Castorena, therefore, had actual knowledge of the 

enforcement hearing, personally appeared at that hearing without claiming 

lack of personal jurisdiction, and argued the merits of the case. Though 

Castorena claims he was not served in the 2017 proceeding, he did not 

challenge the family division’s jurisdiction over him in the 2019 

enforcement proceeding. Moreover, the 2019 judgment—which was 

entered when the family division had personal jurisdiction over 

Castorena—imposed obligations for him to pay child support arrears. At 

the 2019 hearing, the family division noted child support obligations may 
STATE, et al. v. CASTORENA

Decision of the Court

4

be imposed retroactively for up to three years. A.R.S. § 25-809.B. On this 

record, even if he was not served with the petition resulting in the 2017 

judgment, given the valid 2019 judgment, Castorena has shown no error in 

the family division denying his Rule 85 motion. See Forsztc v. Rodriguez, 212 

Ariz. 263, 265, ¶ 9 (App. 2006) (this court will affirm the superior court’s 

ruling if it is correct for any reason apparent in the record). Given this 

conclusion, we need not decide whether service was proper in the 

proceedings leading to the 2017 default judgment. Cf. Austin v. State ex rel. 

Herman, 10 Ariz. App. 474, 476 (1969).

CONCLUSION

¶8 We affirm.