AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The case involves a dispute between a petitioner and a respondent over the inclusion of the petitioner's veterans' disability benefits as income for the purpose of dividing income and expenses between the parties in an interim order, pending their divorce.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Petitioner-Appellant: Contends that his veterans' disability benefits should not be characterized as community property and, therefore, should not have been included as income for the purposes of dividing income between the parties in the interim order allocating income and expenses pending the divorce.
• Respondent-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred by including the petitioner's veterans' disability benefits as income when entering the interim order allocating income and expenses between the parties.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order.

Reasons

• VIGIL, Judge, with TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge, and J. MILES HANISEE, Judge concurring: The Court of Appeals issued a notice of proposed summary disposition proposing to affirm the district court's decision. The petitioner's response to the notice did not persuade the Court that reversible error was established. The Court recognized that the district court had the discretion to enter an interim allocation order and that Rule 1-122(A) NMRA permits the division of separate income as part of its interim allocation order if deemed appropriate under the circumstances. The Court found support in the record for the district court's allocation of income, noting that the petitioner had a net spendable income of $4,419 per month while the respondent had a net spendable income of negative $24 per month. To equalize expenses during the divorce proceedings, the district court required the petitioner to temporarily transfer $2,221.50 a month to the respondent. The Court concluded that there was clear support in the record for the district court's division and affirmed the decision without needing a specific finding that the division of veterans' disability benefits was appropriate.