Court Opinion

ID: 9855303
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 06:22:34.586171+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:25:36.550717
License: Public Domain

STEVENS, Chief Judge
(concurring specially).
I agree with the majority that the decree of divorce became a judgment upon the filing thereof with the Clerk of the Court in Maricopa County, and that time computations began as of that date. I agree that the motion for new trial was denied by operation of law twenty (20) days after the effective date of the judgment, that is the date that the same was filed with the Clerk of the Court, since the time for the ruling on the motion was not “continued by order of the court, or by stipulation.” Rule 59(e). I am unable to agree with the majority in its decision relative to the motion to amend.
When a case is tried to the court without a jury or is determined by the court as a matter of law, a motion for new trial is not an essential prerequisite to a full appeal. *214McClinton v. Rice, 76 Ariz. 358, 265 P.2d 425 (1953).
Rule 52(b) relating to motions to amend judgments provides in part:
“When findings of fact are made in actions tried by the court without a jury, the question of the sufficiency of the evidence to support the findings may thereafter be raised whether or not the party raising the question has made in the superior court an objection to such findings or has made a motion to amend them or a motion for judgment.”
Therefore, in this case, it was at the defendant’s election rather than as a matter of necessity that the after judgment motions were filed. The defendant could have filed either motion without the other and he elected to file both. I specifically refrain from expressing any opinion as to the presence or absence of time elements in relation to a motion to amend the judgment where that motion alone is filed.
Rule 52(b) authorizes the filing of both a motion to amend and a motion for a new trial and in that connection provides:
“The motion may be made with a motion for a new trial pursuant to Rule 59.”
To my mind, this language can have but a single interpretation which is that if a party elects to follow a judgment with the dual approach of a motion for a new trial and a motion to amend, then the time table set forth in Rule 59 relating to a motion for a new trial also governs the motion to amend. It is my opinion that the motion to amend was denied by operation of law on the same date and for the same reason that the motion for new trial was denied by operation of law. It is my opinion that the appeal was not timely taken and that this Court is without jurisdiction.
In the event that I am in error in my conclusions relative to the motion to amend, then I concur in the balance of the opinion of the majority. I concur in the affirmance of the judgment.
Note: Judge FRANCIS J. DONO-FRIO having requested that he be relieved from consideration of this matter, Judge JACK D. H. HAYS was called to sit in his stead and participate in the determination of this decision. ■