After an appellate remand, which statement is correct regarding the right to change a judge and prior waivers?

Study for the Arizona Family Law and Paralegal Certification Exam. Utilize flashcards and multiple-choice questions, complemented by hints and explanations for each question. Prepare confidently for your exam!

When an appellate remand sends the case back to the trial court, the remanded issues are treated as needing fresh consideration under the appellate directions. That means the case is reset for the remanded portion, and the procedural posture is essentially starting over on those issues. Because of that reset, any waivers or concessions tied to the pre-remand posture don’t carry over into the remanded proceedings. The parties must address their rights and objections anew, including the right to request a change of judge if applicable to the remanded issues.

So the remand voids all prior waivers because it reopens the process on the remanded matters as if beginning anew, rather than continuing under the old procedural framework. The other options imply that either the prior waivers survive or that the appellate court itself determines waiver existence, which doesn’t align with how remands reset the case for new consideration of those issues.