Court of Appeals of New Mexico

Decision Information

Citations - New Mexico Laws and Court Rules
Rule Set 12 - Rules of Appellate Procedure - cited by 9,472 documents
Citations - New Mexico Appellate Reports
Hennessy v. Duryea - cited by 662 documents

Decision Content

This decision of the New Mexico Court of Appeals was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports.  Refer to Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished decisions.  Electronic decisions may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official version filed by the Court of Appeals.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

No. A-1-CA-39523

JENNIFER DEE LILES,

Petitioner-Appellee,

v.

JESSE E. LILES,

Respondent-Appellant.

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF LEA COUNTY
Michael H. Stone, District Judge

New Mexico Legal Group, P.C.

Kimberly L. Padilla

Albuquerque, NM

for Appellee

Templeman and Crutchfield, P.C.

James E. Templeman

Lovington, NM

for Appellant

MEMORANDUM OPINION

DUFFY, Judge.

{1}       Respondent appeals seeking reversal of the district court’s order concluding that it did not have the power to calculate back child support without a specific motion. In this Court’s notice of proposed disposition, we proposed to summarily affirm because Respondent failed to carry his burden to demonstrate error in the district court’s ruling. [CN 2-3] Petitioner filed a memorandum in support, which agreed with our proposed affirmance. Respondent, however, failed to file a memorandum in opposition to our proposed disposition. Accordingly, for the reasons stated herein and in our notice of proposed disposition, we affirm. 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}       IT IS SO ORDERED.

MEGAN P. DUFFY, Judge

WE CONCUR:

ZACHARY A. IVES, Judge

JANE B. YOHALEM, Judge

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.