§ 3.4.1.2.2 Motion Must Refer To Correct Rule To Extend Time.

• Jurisdiction: Arizona

§ 3.4.1.2.2 Motion Must Refer To Correct Rule To Extend Time.Hegel v. O’Malley Ins. Co., 117 Ariz. 411, 573 P.2d 485 (1977), resolved any prior uncertainty as to whether post-trial motions not specifically captioned as one of those enumerated in ARCAP 9(e) would extend time limits for appeal. Prior decisions included Farmers Ins. Co. v. Vagnozzi, 132 Ariz. 219, 221, 644 P.2d 1305, 1307 (1982) (discussing when motion for reconsideration of summary judgment may be considered motion for new trial); Maganas v. Northroup, 112 Ariz. 46, 48, 537 P.2d 595, 597 (1975) (R. Civ. P. 59(a) motion for new trial may be directed against summary judgment and denial of such motion extends time to appeal); Ariz. State Liquor Bd. v. Slonsky, 106 Ariz. 25, 470 P.2d 106 (1970) (motion not specifically so labeled did not extend appeal time); Ray Korte Chevrolet v. Simmons, 117 Ariz. 202, 204, 571 P.2d 699, 701 (App. 1977) (substantive content of motion rather than its label determines whether motion will be considered one for “new trial” extending appeal time).

In Hegel, the supreme court held, “irrespective of the title of a motion, if its substance shows clearly that it seeks relief under Rule 59(a) on the grounds set forth in that rule with...