Opinion
No. 1 CA-CV 13-0080
01-07-2014
In re the Marriage of: CHRISTOPHER M. LAWCOCK, Petitioner/Appellee, v. CHRISTA B. LAWCOCK, Respondent/Appellant.
Chester R. Lockwood, Jr., Apache Junction Counsel for Petitioner/Appellee Christa B. Lawcock, Phoenix Pro per Respondent/Appellant
NOTICE: NOT FOR PUBLICATION.
UNDER ARIZ. R. SUP. CT. 111(c), THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT
AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED.
Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. FC2009-093787
The Honorable Bethany G. Hicks, Judge
DISMISSED
COUNSEL
Chester R. Lockwood, Jr., Apache Junction
Counsel for Petitioner/Appellee
Christa B. Lawcock, Phoenix
Pro per Respondent/Appellant
DECISION ORDER
Judge Margaret H. Downie delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Kent E. Cattani and Judge Michael J. Brown joined.
DOWNIE, Judge:
¶1 The court has reviewed the record pursuant to the court's duty to determine whether it has jurisdiction over this appeal. See Sorensen v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Ariz., 191 Ariz. 464, 465, 957 P.2d 1007, 1008 (App. 1997).
¶2 The judgment on appeal was filed December 12, 2012. On December 27, 2012, Appellant filed a Rule 84 motion to alter or amend the judgment pursuant to the Rules of Family Law Procedure. This was a timely, time-extending motion pursuant to ARCAP 9(b)(3). Appellant subsequently filed a notice of appeal, also on December 27, 2012, but after the time-extending Rule 84 motion to alter or amend.
¶3 The Court of Appeals lacks jurisdiction over an appeal that is filed while a motion to alter or amend findings is pending; in fact, a notice of appeal filed while those motions are pending is a nullity. See Craig v. Craig, 227 Ariz. 105, 107, ¶ 13, 253 P.3d 624, 626 (2011).
¶4 Appellant did not file an amended notice of appeal after the trial court ruled on the motion to alter or amend. Therefore,
¶5 IT IS ORDERED dismissing this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.