Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 60(C)
In Vital v. Johnson, 128 Ariz. 129, 132, 624 P.2d 326, 329 (App. 1980) the Court determined that Rule 60(c), Ariz. R. Civ. P., did not permit a trial court "to vacate and reenter the same judgment in order to begin again the time for filing a notice of appeal when no notice of entry of the judgment had been sent to the party by the clerk." J.C. Penney, 197 Ariz. 113, P 12, 3 P.3d at 1035.
The supreme court, however, rejected that interpretation in Park v. Strick, 137 Ariz. 100, 104, 669 P.2d 78, 82 (1983), holding that a trial court may grant relief under Rule 60(c) by vacating and reentering a judgment when "an aggrieved party establishes lack of knowledge that judgment has been entered, and asserts additional reasons that are so extraordinary as to justify relief."
The court also stated that, "where the complaint is only that the party did not have or get the formal notice to which a party is entitled . . ., the relief under Rule 60(c) is not available." Id.
In City of Phoenix v. Geyler, 144 Ariz. 323, 328, 697 P.2d 1073, 1078 (1985), the court then added to the requirements it had described in Park, holding in Geyler that, besides the compelling circumstances required by Rule 60(c), a party must also demonstrate:
(1) lack of proper notice of the judgment;
(2) lack of prejudice to the respondent;
(3) prompt filing of a motion after actual notice is received;
(4) due diligence, or a reason for lack thereof, in attempting to determine the date of the decision.