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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

In re the Marriage of:

SONJA ANN BERRY, Petitioner/Appellee,

v.

TERRY B. DECKER, Respondent/Appellant.

No. CA-CV 14-0368 FC

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. DR1999-014781

The Honorable James T. Blomo, Judge

APPEAL DISMISSED

COUNSEL

Terry B. Decker, Mesa

Respondent/Appellant

Sonja Berry, Gilbert

Petitioner/Appellee
BERRY v. DECKER

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Maurice Portley delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Presiding Judge Margaret H. Downie and Judge Patricia A. Orozco joined.

P O R T L E Y, Judge:

¶1 Terry Decker (“Father”) appeals the family court’s order 

denying his motion to correct the factual findings of a 2011 minute entry. 

For the following reasons, we dismiss the appeal.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 Father and Sonja Ann Berry (“Mother”) divorced in 2001. 

Mother was awarded sole custody of their two children. In 2009, the court 

appointed a therapeutic interventionist (“TI”) and gave the TI the authority 

to arrange psychological examinations for the children.

1

¶3 The TI set up medical testing for the younger child at the 

Melmed Center (“the Center”) in 2011. Mother objected to testing at the 

Center and, instead, arranged for the child to be tested by a child 

psychologist. The TI sent a report to the court, and the court issued a 

minute entry stating the child shall attend the testing sessions scheduled by 

the TI. In its findings, the court stated that before the TI had made any 

testing arrangements, the TI “sought to determine if testing had been 

arranged by the [parents]” and “learned that it had not.” Neither parent 

objected to the ruling or its findings.

¶4 Three years later, Father filed a “motion to correct” the 2011 

minute entry, alleging he had indeed scheduled the testing by “bifurcating 

the various parts of the Melmed tests in lieu of doing all test phases without 

interruption.” Father argued the minute entry “could reflect poorly and 

incorrectly upon [him] in any future reference[s]” to the minute entry. The 

court denied the motion, stating Father “waited almost three years” to file 

the motion. Father appealed the court’s denial of his motion to correct.

 

1 The court reappointed the TI in 2010.
BERRY v. DECKER

Decision of the Court

3

DISCUSSION

¶5 We have an independent duty to determine if we have

jurisdiction over an appeal. Musa v. Adrian, 130 Ariz. 311, 312, 636 P.2d 89, 

90 (1981). Unless a constitutional or statutory provision makes a judgment 

or order appealable, we “do not have jurisdiction to consider the merits of 

the question raised on appeal.” Id. (citation omitted). Arizona Revised 

Statutes (“A.R.S.”) section 12-2101(A)(2) allows appeals from “any special 

order made after final judgment.”2 However, “not every order following a 

final judgment is appealable.” Arvizu v. Fernandez, 183 Ariz. 224, 226, 902 

P.2d 830, 832 (App. 1995) (citation omitted).

¶6 To be appealable, a post-judgment order must meet two 

requirements. Williams v. Williams, 228 Ariz. 160, 164, ¶ 11, 264 P.3d 870, 

874 (App. 2011). First, the order must raise different issues from those that 

would arise in an appeal from the underlying judgment. Id. And the order

must either affect the judgment or relate to it by enforcing or staying its 

execution. Arvizu, 183 Ariz. at 833, 902 P.2d at 227. 

¶7 Even if we assume for argument the 2011 minute entry was a 

final judgment,3 the denial of Father’s motion to correct the record in 2014 

is not appealable. First, Father did not challenge the findings or substance 

of the 2011 ruling, and now seeks to challenge the findings. His appeal of 

the 2014 ruling, as a result, does not raise any issue that could not have been 

raised in an appeal from the 2011 order. See Engel v. Landman, 221 Ariz. 504, 

510, ¶ 20, 212 P.3d 842, 848 (App. 2009). 

¶8 Moreover, the 2014 ruling does not affect the decree that gave 

rise to the 2011 ruling. Arvizu, 183 Ariz. at 227, 902 P.2d at 833 (“[A]

postjudgment order that does not affect the judgment or relate to its 

enforcement [is] not appealable.” (alteration in original) (quoting Lakin v. 

Watkins Associated Indus., 863 P.2d 179, 183 (Cal. 1995))). In fact, the issue 

giving rise to the 2011 ruling is now moot; the child was tested in 2011 and 

the TI was relieved of her duties in 2013. As a result, the mootness doctrine 

prevents us from deciding an issue that is “no longer in existence because 

of changes in the factual circumstances.” Flores v. Cooper Tire & Rubber Co., 

218 Ariz. 52, 57, ¶ 24, 178 P.3d 1176, 1181 (App. 2008) (internal citation and 

 

2 We cite to the current version of the statute unless otherwise noted.

3 The minute entry was not signed and “[a]n unsigned minute entry is not 

a final judgment.” Sysco Ariz., Inc. v. Hoskins, 235 Ariz. 164, 166, ¶ 10, 330 

P.3d 354, 356 (App. 2014); see Ariz. R. Fam. Law P. 81 (“All judgments shall 

be in writing and signed by a judge . . .”). 
BERRY v. DECKER

Decision of the Court

4

quotation marks omitted). Consequently, the 2014 ruling does not meet the 

requirements to be an appealable post-judgment order.

COSTS

¶9 Father seeks costs on appeal. Because he did not prevail, his 

request is denied. See A.R.S. § 12-341.

CONCLUSION

¶10 Because the denial of Father’s motion to correct the minute 

entry is a non-appealable post-judgment order, we dismiss the appeal for 

lack of jurisdiction.