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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

ZURIYA AMEDOVSKI, Petitioner/Appellee, 

v.

TURAN AMEDOVSKI, Respondent/Appellant. 

No. 1 CA-CV 18-0380 FC

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. FN2016-001539 

The Honorable Scott Minder, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

The Ber Law Firm, Phoenix

By Hershel Ber

Counsel for Respondent/Appellant

FILED 2-26-2019
AMEDOVSKI v. AMEDOVSKI

Decision of the Court

2 

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Jennifer M. Perkins delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Presiding Judge Diane M. Johnsen and Judge Michael J. Brown joined.

P E R K I N S, Judge:

¶1 Turan Amedovski (“Husband”) appeals the superior court’s 

order denying his motion to set aside the decree dissolving his marriage to 

Zuriya Amedovski (“Wife”). For the following reasons, we affirm. 

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2 Wife filed for dissolution of the marriage in 2016. The parties 

disputed the division of community property and whether the court should 

award Wife spousal maintenance. Husband did not appear for trial, which 

took place on February 20, 2018, and the court heard Wife’s evidence in his 

absence. The court entered a decree on March 5 granting Wife $1,200 per 

month as spousal maintenance for 60 months and dividing the community 

property as she had proposed.

¶3 On March 9, Husband filed a motion to set aside the decree 

under Arizona Rule of Family Law Procedure (“Rule” or “ARFLP”) 85(b)(1) 

and (6). He asserted that he erroneously calendared the trial date for 

February 28, a mistake he claimed constituted “excusable neglect” under 

Rule 85(b)(1). He also cited his general poor health and explained that when 

he learned of his calendaring error he suffered an anxiety attack that

required a hospital visit on February 23, 2018. Husband’s motion was not 

supported by an affidavit or other evidence, but he attached some medical 

records to his reply to support his claim of ill health and his February 23 

hospital visit. The superior court denied the motion to set aside, finding that 

Husband’s calendaring error was the result of carelessness or lack of 

attention to detail and did not constitute “excusable neglect.” Husband now 

appeals. 

DISCUSSION

¶4 As an initial matter, this Court could consider Wife’s failure

to file an answering brief as a confession of error; however, in the exercise 

of our discretion, we consider the merits of the issues raised on appeal. See

Bugh v. Bugh, 125 Ariz. 190, 191 (App. 1980). 
AMEDOVSKI v. AMEDOVSKI

Decision of the Court

3 

¶5 Husband challenges the superior court’s determination that 

his calendaring error did not constitute “excusable neglect” under Rule 

85(b)(1). The superior court has broad discretion in addressing a motion to 

set aside a decree, and this Court reviews the ruling for an abuse of 

discretion. Duckstein v. Wolf, 230 Ariz. 227, 231, ¶ 8 (App. 2012). We 

therefore will uphold the court’s denial of a motion for relief from judgment 

unless “undisputed facts and circumstances . . . require a contrary ruling as 

a matter of law.” Coconino Pulp & Paper Co. v. Marvin, 83 Ariz. 117, 121 (1957) 

(applying Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 60); see also Duckstein, 230 Ariz. 

at 231, ¶ 8 (because language of ARFLP 85(b) is “substantially the same as 

the language” in Ariz. R. Civ. P. 60(c), case law interpreting the latter will 

apply to the former).

¶6 The superior court may relieve a party from judgment on the 

grounds of mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. ARFLP 

85(b)(1). “Carelessness does not equate with excusable neglect.” Ulibarri v. 

Gerstenberger, 178 Ariz. 151, 163 (App. 1993). “Rather, the test of what is 

excusable is whether the neglect or inadvertence is such as might be the act 

of a reasonably prudent person under similar circumstances.” Daou v. 

Harris, 139 Ariz. 353, 359 (1984). Thus, a party’s diligence—or lack thereof—

is the “final arbiter of whether mistake or neglect is excusable.” City of 

Phoenix v. Geyler, 144 Ariz. 323, 332 (1985). 

¶7 Husband had ample notice of the correct trial date. In 

November 2017, the superior court issued a minute entry setting the 

dissolution trial for February 20, 2018. Wife referenced that trial date in the 

caption of her Amended Pretrial Statement, which she filed and mailed to 

Husband's post office box on February 13, 2018, and in correspondence she 

sent to Husband on February 14, 2018. Nevertheless, he argues he miscalendared the date not merely because of carelessness, but because of 

“physical and mental impediments to his cognitive abilities.” Even 

assuming Husband advanced that argument in his motion to set aside the 

decree, he did not offer any evidence that his medical issues prevented him 

from exercising due care to properly calendar the trial date. 

¶8 Moreover, Husband had a history of not diligently 

participating in the dissolution proceeding. He did not respond to Wife’s 

petition until after she filed an application for entry of default, did not file 

an Affidavit of Financial Information, and did not timely respond to Wife’s

discovery requests. Additionally, Husband did not appear for a courtordered Early Resolution Conference, resulting in the court assessing him 

a $100 fee. Wife was unable to contact Husband to jointly prepare a pretrial 

statement, and Husband did not submit any exhibits for trial.
AMEDOVSKI v. AMEDOVSKI

Decision of the Court

4 

¶9 Under these circumstances, the record supports the superior 

court’s conclusion that Husband’s calendaring error was the result of 

carelessness, not excusable neglect.

CONCLUSION

¶10 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm.