Court of Appeals of New Mexico
Decision Information
Rule Set 12 - Rules of Appellate Procedure - cited by 9,435 documents
Citations - New Mexico Appellate Reports
Hennessy v. Duryea - cited by 658 documents
State v. Ibarra - cited by 251 documents
State v. Sisneros - cited by 149 documents
Decision Content
YSAIS V. YSAIS
This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico 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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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.
CONSUELO ANGELA YSAIS (n/k/a LEYBA),
Petitioner-Appellee,
v.
CHRISTOPHER YSAIS,
Respondent-Appellant.
NO. 29,915
COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW MEXICO
March 2, 2010
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF SANDOVAL COUNTY,
Matthew G. Reynolds, District Judge
COUNSEL
Consuelo Angela Ysais, Rio Rancho, NM, for Appellee
Christopher Ysais, Rio Rancho, NM, for Appellant
JUDGES
MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge. WE CONCUR: CYNTHIA A. FRY, Judge, LINDA M. VANZI, Judge
AUTHOR:
MEMORANDUM OPINION
BUSTAMANTE, Judge.
Father, pro se, appeals from the child custody order filed on August 26, 2009, granting sole custody of the child to Mother, and granting visitation rights to Father. We proposed to affirm in a calendar notice. Father responded to that notice with a memorandum in opposition. We have carefully reviewed Father’s arguments, but we are not persuaded that affirmance is not the correct disposition in this case. We therefore affirm.
Father repeats the claims that were included in his docketing statement. In summary calendar cases, such as this, the party who opposes the proposed disposition set out in the calendar notice has the burden of clearly pointing out errors in fact or law in that proposed disposition. See Hennessy v. Duryea, 1998-NMCA-036, ¶ 24, 124 N.M. 754, 955 P.2d 683; see also State v. Ibarra, 116 N.M. 486, 489, 864 P.2d 302, 305 (Ct. App. 1993); State v. Sisneros, 98 N.M. 201, 202-03, 647 P.2d 403, 404-05 (1982). Father has not met that burden. Instead, Father repeats the arguments previously made; the arguments that were fully addressed in our calendar notice.
Therefore, for the reasons discussed in our calendar notice, we affirm the district court’s decision.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge
WE CONCUR:
CYNTHIA A. FRY, Judge
LINDA M. VANZI, Judge