Court of Appeals of New Mexico
Decision Information
Rule Set 12 - Rules of Appellate Procedure - cited by 9,410 documents
Rule Set 1 - Rules of Civil Procedure for the District Courts - cited by 4,501 documents
Citations - New Mexico Appellate Reports
Buffington v. McGorty - cited by 59 documents
Hennessy v. Duryea - cited by 657 documents
Decision Content
OLSON V. OLSON
This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does not include the filing date.
MISTY OLSON,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
SCOTT OLSON,
Respondent-Appellee.
No. 35,707
COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW MEXICO
April 3, 2017
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF SANDOVAL COUNTY, Cheryl
H. Johnston, District Judge
COUNSEL
Atler Law Firm, P.C., Timothy J. Atler, Albuquerque, NM, Roybal-Mack & Cordova, P.C., Antonia Roybal-Mack, Albuquerque, NM, for Appellant
Frazier Law Office, William E. Frazier, Crystal E. Lees, Albuquerque, NM, for Appellee
JUDGES
LINDA M. VANZI, Chief Judge. WE CONCUR: M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge, J. MILES HANISEE, Judge
MEMORANDUM OPINION
VANZI, Chief Judge.
{1} Petitioner appeals from the district court’s order adopting the child support hearing officer’s report and recommendations. This Court issued a notice of proposed disposition in which we proposed to reverse the district court’s order. A memorandum in support of our proposed summary disposition was filed by Petitioner. However, no memorandum opposing summary reversal has been filed, and the time for doing so has expired. See Hennessy v. Duryea, 1998-NMCA-036, ¶ 24, 124 N.M. 754, 955 P.2d 683 (“Our courts have repeatedly held that, in summary calendar cases, the burden is on the party opposing the proposed disposition to clearly point out errors in fact or law.”).
{2} Accordingly, for the reasons stated in this Court’s notice of proposed disposition, we reverse and remand for further proceedings in compliance with Rule 1-053.2 NMRA and Buffington v. McGorty, 2004-NMCA-092, 136 N.M. 226, 96 P.3d 787, to sufficiently establish the basis for the district court’s actions.
{3} IT IS SO ORDERED.
LINDA M. VANZI, Chief Judge
WE CONCUR:
M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge
J. MILES HANISEE, Judge