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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

MICHAEL JAMES LOGAN,

Petitioner/Appellant, 

v.

DAYNA LEE ANN LOGAN,

Respondent/Appellee.

No. 1 CA-CV 16-0764 FC

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. FN2015-001351

 FN2015-091773

 (Consolidated)

The Honorable Suzanne E. Cohen, Judge

VACATED AND REMANDED

COUNSEL

Bert L. Roos, Esq., Phoenix

By Bert L. Roos

Counsel for Petitioner/Appellant

Dayna Lee Ann Logan, Surprise

Respondent/Appellee

FILED 1-11-2018
LOGAN v. LOGAN

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Michael J. Brown delivered the decision of the Court, in 

which Judge Jennifer B. Campbell and Judge Patricia A. Orozco1 joined.

B R O W N, Judge:

¶1 Michael Logan (“Husband”) appeals the superior court’s 

order denying his motion to set aside/amend the court’s decree dissolving 

his marriage to Dayna Logan (“Wife”). Because the court erred in finding 

that the motion was not timely filed, we vacate the order and remand for 

further proceedings. 

¶2 On the scheduled trial date, the parties alerted the superior

court they had reached a verbal settlement agreement, which Husband’s 

counsel explained on the record. Both parties testified that (1) they 

understood the terms of the agreement and entered into it freely, without 

duress; and (2) the terms were fair and equitable. The court found the 

agreement was fair and equitable and accepted the agreement as an 

enforceable, “binding agreement under Rule 69.” See Ariz. R. Fam. Law P. 

(“ARFLP”) 69 (“Rule 69”). The court then ordered Husband’s counsel to 

prepare a formal stipulation containing “the agreement of the parties 

dictated on the record.” 

¶3 More than two months later, Wife filed a proposed consent 

decree, explaining that her counsel mailed a draft consent decree to 

Husband’s counsel for review and approval but “Husband has provided 

no written input, no objections and no proposed revisions to Wife’s 

proposed [d]ecree.” Seventeen days later, Husband filed an objection 

asserting the decree “adds additional terms . . . that were not agreed upon 

and that materially change [Husband’s] financial obligation.” The court 

denied Husband’s objection as untimely pursuant to ARFLP 81, which 

requires objections to a proposed judgment be filed within five days. See

ARFLP 81(C). The court filed the signed decree, as prepared by Wife’s 

counsel, on August 18, 2016. 

 

1 The Honorable Patricia A. Orozco, retired Judge of the Court of 

Appeals, Division One, has been authorized to sit in this matter pursuant 

to Article VI, Section 3 of the Arizona Constitution.
LOGAN v. LOGAN

Decision of the Court

3

¶4 On September 2, 2016, Husband filed a motion to set aside, or 

alternatively, to amend the decree, asserting that without his consent, Wife 

added terms to the decree “inconsistent with the Rule 69 Agreement.” 

Husband thus requested that the superior court review the Rule 69 

Agreement and enter a decree consistent with its terms, but the court 

denied the motion as untimely. This timely appeal followed. 

¶5 Husband asserts the superior court improperly denied his 

motion, which we review on appeal for an abuse of discretion. See Duckstein 

v. Wolf, 230 Ariz. 227, 232, ¶ 8 (App. 2012). “A court abuses its discretion if 

it commits an error of law in reaching a discretionary conclusion, it reaches 

a conclusion without considering the evidence, it commits some other 

substantial error of law, or the record fails to provide substantial evidence 

to support the trial court’s finding.” Id. (internal quotation marks and 

citation omitted). 

¶6 Husband’s motion was filed on September 2, 2016, 15 days 

after the court filed the final decree. Under ARFLP 83 and 85, his motion 

was timely. ARFLP 83(D) states that “[a] motion for a new trial shall be 

filed not later than fifteen (15) days after entry of the judgment.” A motion 

to set aside filed under ARFLP 85 “shall be filed within a reasonable time,” 

and “not more than six (6) months after the judgment or order was entered 

. . . .” ARFLP 85(C)(2). Thus, the court abused its discretion in denying 

Husband’s motion based on timeliness.2 We therefore remand for 

consideration of the merits of the motion. Regarding Husband’s request

 

2 We note that Wife has not argued, either in the superior court or on 

appeal, that Husband’s filing was untimely. 
LOGAN v. LOGAN

Decision of the Court

4

for attorneys’ fees incurred on appeal, we defer his request to the superior 

court pending the ultimate determination of the merits of Husband’s 

motion.