OPINION

I. INTRODUCTION

TV., a minor, was struck by a car in 2012. T.V.'s father, Jack Vinson, hired counsel and petitioned the superior court on T.V.'s behalf for approval of insurance settlements related to that accident. Jack advised the court that the funds from the settlements would be placed in a special needs trust administered .by the Foundation of the Arc of Anchorage for TV's care. The superior court approved the settlements on the recommendation of a magistrate judge.

Slightly more than one year after the approval of the petition, Jack filed a motion requesting that the settlement funds be removed from the trust and returned to him. The magistrate judge overseeing the matter recommended that the superior court deny the motion because the trust was not a party to the minor settlement proceeding, but the court did not rule on the magistrate judge's recommendation. Jack appealed directly to this court, but we remanded to the superior court to review and rule on the magistrate judge's order, A second magistrate judge conducted a hearing and made another recommendation to deny Jack's motion. The superior court approved the denial, and we now review the superior court's order.

We AFFIRM the superior court's denial of Jack's motion to remove the settlement funds from the trust and return them to him.

II. FACTS & PROCEEDINGS

In July 2012 TV., a minor, was hit by a car and was left paralyzed from the chest down, In January 2018 Jack, represented by attorney Charlie Coe, petitioned the superior court for approval of insurance settlements related to the accident,. The petition was assigned to Magistrate Judge John Duggan, *600 acting as probate master, and Superior Court Judge Patnck J. McKay.

Magistrate Judge Duggan held a hearing on the petition in February 2013. At the hearing Coe described the settlements and informed Magistrate Judge Duggan that the proceeds from the settlements would be placed in a special needs trust for T.V.'s benefit. Coe explained that the special needs trust would ensure that the money could be used for T.V.'s benefit while allowing him to maintain his eligibility for Medicaid and other public benefits programs. 1

Coe later filed documents indicating that the settlement proceeds would be deposited with the Arc' of Anchorage's pooled trust, Arctrast II." Aretrust II 2 purpose is to "promote the Beneficiaries' comfort and happiness, by using the trust property to provide and serve the interests of the Beneficiaries." It is not intended to provide "basic maintenance, support, medical, dental and therapeutic care, or any other appropriate care, or service that may be paid for or provided by other sources."

Magistrate Judge Duggan recommended that the superior court approve the petition regarding the settlements, and the superior court did so in mid-February 2013.

Jack apparently became displeased with the Arc's care and management of TV's settlement money. In late February 2014, Jack, proceeding pro se, filed a motion in the probate case requesting that the "A[rc] return all fund[s] with int[erest] to Jack Vinson .. because the Alrc] has not been in touch or would not give out [TV's] funds when requested." Jack alleged that "[flamily attlorney] Charlie Coe is on the Board of the Alrc] [and] [we] believed in attorney] Coe [and] Afrc]. But when funds were requested [they were] declined."

Magistrate Judge Duggan, acting as probate master, recommended that the superior court deny the motion on March 4, 2014, noting, "Are] is not a party to minor settlement proceeding. Funds were to be deposited in Special Needs Trust as authorized." The superior court did not rule on the magistrate judge's recommendation. Jack appealed directly to this court on March 21, 2014. We remanded the issue to the superior court to review and rule on the magistrate judge's recommendation. 3 We retained jurisdiction to review the superior court's order. 4

At the request of the superior court, Magistrate Judge James Stanley held a hearing to take additional evidence relating to Magistrate Judge Duggan's March 4, 2014 recommendation, During this hearing an Arc representative stated that the Arc had no record that Jack ever asked the trust to purchase anything using trust funds. Jack indicated that his requests for funds were verbal, which the Arc representative noted was not a sufficient way to request funds from the trust. The representative also stated that the Arc was willing to work with Jack to remedy his concerns or to help him transfer the funds to a different trust. At the conclusion of the hearing Magistrate Judge Stanley determined that "[the March 4, 2014 order represents a correct legal decision and should stand. Afre] is not a party, to this minor settlement case.... Refund of monies now held in trust for the benefit of [TV.] could have unintended adverse consequences." Magistrate Judge Stanley recommended the superior court deny Jack's motion. The superior court adopted Magistrate Judge Stanley's recommendation and denied the motion. Jack was provided the opportu *601 nity to file a supplemental brief with this court, but he did not do so. We now consider Jack's appeal.

IIL OF REVIEW

"We may affirm the superior court's decision on any basis appearing in the record." 5 "We review questions regarding personal and subject matter jurisdiction de novo because "jurisdictional issues are questions of law subject to this court's 1ndepen— dent judgment. " 6

IV. DISCUSSION

Jack's precise claims are unclear. His underlying motion to the superior court sought to have the Are provide the settlement money to him with interest. But Jack's notice of appeal states that he is appealing the order approving the petition for minor settlement, which was issued on February 19, 2018. He claims that "[the Superior Court's decision was wrong ... [blecause the Court [and] [TV.] [and] family were mislead '[sic]. 18 months later still no help for [T.V.], No money-No trust-No A[re].""

If we read Jack's motion literally, his motion is one for relief from judgment under Alaska Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1). Rule 60(b)(1) applies when relief from judgment is justified because of "mistake, nad; vertence, surprise or excusable neglect. » Jack alleges that he "[blelieved that [his] lawyer Charles Coe (AKA President of the Afrc]) would make sure that [his] son [T.V.] would get the best care.... But instead [Coe and the Arc] treated [TV.] [and his] family like nothing." Jack claims that he was misled by his attorney regarding the services the Are would provide and how the settlement money would be used. But Jack did not bring his motion in a timely fashion, The clerk's certificate of service on the February 15, 2018 order that is the subject of Jack's motion states it was distributed on February 19, 2018. Jack filed his motion on February 27, 2014, Under Civil Rule 60(b), a motion for relief from judgment under subsection (b)(1) must be brought within one year of the distribution date of the order that is the subject of the motion. Therefore, the motion was not timely and, because it was not timely, we typically would not consider it.

However, "[wle consider pro se pleadings liberally." 7 Reading Jack's pleadings liberally, we conclude that he is appealing the order denying his motion that the funds be returned to him. '" Thus, the question Jack presents is whether the superior court properly denied his motion. We conclude that the superior court did not err in denying Jack's motion to remove the settlement funds from the trust and return them to him.

Jack's underlying motion was an attempt to state a claim against the Arc, and his requested relief was the return of the settlement proceeds. However, the Are was not a party to the original proceedings. We have held that "[slervice of process is a preliminary requirement to a court obtaining personal jurisdiction over a party. 8 Furthermore, Alaska courts have subject matter jurisdiction over a person or entity "served in an action according to the rules of civil procedure. 9 Alaska Civil Rule 4 discusses the requirements of service of process and requires the service of a summons and a complaint. <~In this case, Jack served the Are with a copy of his motion, but this was not-a complaint against the Are and no summons accompamed it, Although "(tlhe voluntary appearance of the defendant is equivalent to personal service of a copy of the summons and complaint *602 upon the defendant, 10 the Are has never entered an appearance in this action; in the hearing before Magistrate Judge Stanley, the Are representative participated as a witness only.

Because the gravamen of Jack's motion was a claim against the Arce of Anchorage and because the Are of Anchorage was not a party to the minor's probate case, the superi- or court did not have jurisdiction over the Arc and correctly denied Jack's motion. 11

v. CONCLUSION

We AFFIRM the superior court's denial of Jack's motion requesting that the Are return the trust funds to him.