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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

JULIE CIOPPA, Petitioner/Appellant,

v.

JEFF PATAKY, Respondent/Appellee.

No. 1 CA-CV 15-0193 FC

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. FC2006-006523

The Honorable James T. Blomo, Judge

The Honorable Michael J. Herrod, Judge

VACATED

COUNSEL

Julie Cioppa, Peoria

Petitioner/Appellant

Jeff Pataky, Peoria

Respondent/Appellee
CIOPPA v. PATAKY

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Lawrence F. Winthrop delivered the decision of the Court, 

in which Judge Patricia K. Norris and Judge Kenton D. Jones joined.

W I N T H R O P, Presiding Judge:

¶1 Petitioner/appellant Julie Cioppa (“Mother”) appeals the 

family court’s judgment directing her to pay respondent/appellee Jeff 

Pataky (“Father”) $9,500 for attorneys’ fees. For the following reasons, we 

vacate the judgment.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2 Mother and Father were divorced in January 2008. In 2013, 

Mother filed a petition to modify parenting time, and Father crosspetitioned to modify legal decision-making and parenting time.

¶3 At a review hearing on December 2, 2013, Judge Blomo found 

Mother had been unreasonable and directed Father to file a China Doll1

affidavit itemizing his costs and fees incurred in the matter to that date. 

Father filed the affidavit on January 30, 2014, and Mother responded on 

February 11, 2014. Judge Blomo did not issue a ruling at that time, later 

stating he had held the matter in abeyance pending resolution of the crosspetitions.

¶4 In June 2014, Judge Herrod assumed Judge Blomo’s calendar, 

including this case, as part of the court’s routine judicial rotation. In August 

and September 2014, Judge Herrod held three evidentiary hearings 

regarding the parties’ cross-petitions to modify. After the final hearing, 

Judge Herrod directed that he would take the matter under advisement

pending an in camera interview with the parties’ children. Judge Herrod 

conducted the interview in October and issued a signed decision on the 

cross-petitions on November 20, 2014. He found both parties had taken 

 

1 See Schweiger v. China Doll Rest., Inc., 138 Ariz. 183, 673 P.2d 927 (App. 

1983).
CIOPPA v. PATAKY

Decision of the Court

3

unreasonable positions and caused the litigation to be extended, and 

ordered that they bear their own attorneys’ fees and costs.2

¶5 On February 2, 2015, Judge Blomo issued a minute entry 

stating Judge Herrod had referred the matter of the attorneys’ fees related 

to the December 2, 2013 ruling to him. Judge Blomo granted Father’s 

request for an award of fees through December 2, 2013, and ordered Mother 

to pay Father $9,500. On April 2, 2015, Judge Herrod’s signed judgment

corresponding to Judge Blomo’s ruling was filed.

¶6 Mother timely appealed the attorneys’ fees award. We have 

jurisdiction pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) section 12-

2101(A)(2) (2016).

ANALYSIS

¶7 Mother challenges the attorneys’ fees award, arguing the 

November 20, 2014 signed order resolved all outstanding issues, including 

Father’s request for an award of attorneys’ fees, and it was therefore 

improper for the court to subsequently enter a ruling on that matter.3 

Father responds that the award was not an abuse of discretion and asserts 

we must assume the court had sufficient evidence to support the award 

because Mother has failed to provide transcripts of the relevant hearings.

¶8 We independently review as a matter of law whether the 

family court had authority to amend the November 20 order and award 

attorneys’ fees to Father. Danielson v. Evans, 201 Ariz. 401, 411, ¶ 36, 36 P.3d 

749, 759 (App. 2001).

 

2 Approximately two weeks before that decision, Father filed a motion 

inquiring as to the status of his January 30, 2014 application for an award of 

attorneys’ fees and asked the court to issue a ruling.

3 Mother also contends the award violated a provision of the Arizona 

Constitution that requires every matter submitted to a superior court judge 

be resolved within sixty days. Because we determine the family court 

lacked jurisdiction to enter the attorneys’ fees award and vacate that order, 

we do not address this argument.
CIOPPA v. PATAKY

Decision of the Court

4

¶9 Pursuant to Arizona law,

the inherent power of the court to vacate or modify its 

judgment does not extend beyond the point at which the 

judgment becomes final, except as authorized by law. When 

a judgment becomes final, the power of the court to open it is 

governed by the Rules of Civil Procedure adopted by [the 

Arizona Supreme Court].

Preston v. Denkins, 94 Ariz. 214, 219, 382 P.2d 686, 689 (1963) (citations 

omitted).

4

¶10 Here, the November 20 signed order was a final, appealable 

order that resolved all outstanding issues related to the cross-petitions, 

including both parties’ requests for attorneys’ fees. See A.R.S. § 12-

2101(A)(2); In re Marriage of Dorman, 198 Ariz. 298, 301, ¶ 4, 9 P.3d 329, 332 

(App. 2000) (concluding an order resolving a petition to modify a decree of 

dissolution was appealable as a special order after final judgment); Williams 

v. Williams, 228 Ariz. 160, 165-67, ¶¶ 19-29, 264 P.3d 870, 875-77 (App. 2011) 

(ruling that an order appealed from must resolve all issues in the subject 

petition even though total finality in the post-decree context is not 

required). Accordingly, it could only be modified or vacated by an order 

entered pursuant to ARFLP 83 (regarding motions for new trial or amended 

judgment) or 85(C) (regarding a motion for relief from judgment). Neither 

of the parties timely requested, or set forth grounds for, such relief. See

ARFLP 83(A), (D)(1); 85(C)(1)-(2). Further, the court did not act on its own 

initiative within the fifteen days allowed for it to grant a new trial under 

ARFLP 83 and did not find grounds to vacate the November 20 order under 

ARFLP 85. The court therefore did not have authority to modify the 

November 20 order and award Father attorneys’ fees. See generally Preston, 

94 Ariz. at 219, 382 P.2d at 689.

 

4 The Arizona Rules of Family Law Procedure (“ARFLP”) apply in this 

case and replace the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure except where the civil

rules are expressly incorporated. ARFLP 1, 2(A). Where the language of 

the ARFLP is substantially the same as the language of other statewide 

rules, case law interpreting that language is applicable. See ARFLP 1, cmt.; 

Kline v. Kline, 221 Ariz. 564, 568-69, ¶ 13, 212 P.3d 902, 906-07 (App. 2009).
CIOPPA v. PATAKY

Decision of the Court

5

CONCLUSION

¶11 Because the family court did not have authority to modify the 

November 20, 2014 order, we vacate the April 2, 2015 attorneys’ fees award.

¶12 Mother requests an award of attorneys’ fees on appeal 

pursuant to A.R.S. § 25-324 (Supp. 2015). Because Mother is not represented 

by an attorney in this appeal, we deny her request. See Connor v. Cal-Az 

Props., Inc., 137 Ariz. 53, 56, 668 P.2d 896, 899 (App. 1983) (“[A] party who 

represents himself in litigation has no right to be compensated by the 

payment of attorneys’ fees because of the absence of an attorney-client 

relationship.”). As the prevailing party, however, Mother is awarded the 

taxable costs she incurred on appeal, contingent upon her compliance with 

Rule 21, ARCAP.