Garcia v. Ison, No. 1 CA-CV 24-0352 FC (Ct. App. Div. I, July 22, 2025) (J. Cattani) ) https://coa1.azcourts.gov/Portals/0/OpinionFiles/Div1/2025/1%20CA-CV%2024-0352%20FC.pdf

PARTY PARTICIPATING IN FRAUD ON COURT TO OBTAIN JUDGMENT CANNOT OBTAIN RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT BASED UPON TRUTH EVEN WHERE ADVERSE PARTY BENEFITING FROM JUDGMENT ALSO PARTICIPATED IN THE FRAUD

Tiffany Ison had a child two months before marrying Joseph Garcia, then had a second child with Garcia. Ten years later Ison and Garcia petitioned the court for dissolution of their marriage including orders regarding parenting time and decision-making regarding both children.  In the petition they claimed they were both parents of both children.  They also executed an acknowledgment of paternity stating Garcia was the father of both children, and a new birth certificate issued listing both as the first child's parents. 

Subsequently, Garcia petitioned to modify the legal decision-making and parenting time alleging domestic violence in Ison's home. Ison responded claiming for the first time Garcia was not the first child's genetic parent. Garcia admitted, through his attorney, that he was not the genetic father before the Navajo County Superior Court and asked the court for relief from the paternity judgment since Garcia was not the genetic parent. It was never established when Garcia learned he was not the genetic parent and therefore never established whether he indeed also committed a fraud on the court. The superior court granted Ison's motion and set aside the paternity judgment and ultimately denied Garcia's modification petition.

The Arizona Court of Appeals reversed the trial court in part, vacated the decision in part and remanded.

Relief from a judgment based upon a fraud on the court is an equitable remedy available only to an innocent party harmed by the judgment. 

[A} perpetrator of fraud is not entitled to rely on their own misconduct 
as grounds for relief from a judgment procured by their own fraud—even 
if the opposing party was also allegedly complicit. . . As our supreme court 
put it, those who perpetrate a fraud to procure a judgment are “simply not
in a position to claim extraordinary circumstances of hardship or injustice,
having brought the circumstances upon [themselves]. . . .