Lamb v. Arizona Country Club
In Lamb v. Arizona Country Club, 124 Ariz. 239, 239, 603 P.2d 510, 510 (App. 1979), the Arizona Country Club filed an action to quiet title to a private roadway.
The Lambs and the Club reached a settlement prior to trial and signed a stipulated judgment embodying the terms of the agreement. Id.
Thereafter, the Lambs filed a Rule 60(c) motion for relief. Id.
The trial court denied the motion on its merits and this court affirmed. Id. at 240, 242, 603 P.2d at 511, 513.
Lamb did not address Rule 60(c) as it relates to dissolution proceedings. However, the case did address similar procedural issues to those in the present case.
In Lamb, the procedural issue was how to ensure the non-moving party the protections of contract law regarding the underlying settlement agreement while at the same time avoiding the inefficiencies of an independent rescission action.
In order to avoid the circuity of action, the trial court could determine from the memoranda submitted with the Rule 60(c) motion that a sufficient preliminary showing has been made regarding the infirmity of the settlement agreement and vacate the judgment on condition that the issue relating to the avoidance of the settlement agreement be alleged by way of supplemental pleadings and adjudicated before it in the normal course of trial procedure. The outcome would then determine whether the judgment should either be re-entered or whether the parties should be restored to their pre-settlement position under the original pleadings. Id. at 240 n.2, 603 P.2d at 511 n.2.