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

• In a divorce proceeding, the Petitioner appealed the final decree, challenging several aspects of the district court's decisions, including interim support arrearage, spousal support, child support, visitation, and attorney fees. The case involved a consolidation with a previously filed domestic violence case, leading to a complex calculation of interim support obligations and arrearages based on stipulated orders and the parties' financial circumstances.

Procedural History

• District Court of San Juan County, Daylene Marsh, District Judge: Issued a final decree in the divorce proceeding, which the Petitioner appealed.

Parties' Submissions

• Petitioner: Argued that the district court erred in its findings regarding interim support arrearage, spousal support, and child support calculations. Supported the appellate court's proposed partial reversal.
• Respondent: Filed a memorandum in partial opposition, particularly contesting the proposed reversals related to interim support arrearage, spousal support, and the calculation of child support.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in calculating the interim support arrearage owed by the Respondent.
• Whether the district court's award of spousal support, based on the interim support arrearage calculation, was erroneous.
• Whether the district court's child support award should be recalculated based on twelve months worth of Respondent’s income, as mandated by NMSA 1978, Section 40-4-11.1(K) (2008).

Disposition

• The district court's orders regarding visitation are affirmed.
• The district court's finding regarding Respondent’s interim support arrearage is reversed.
• The award of spousal support is set aside for adjustment consistent with the Respondent’s actual arrearage.
• The award of child support is reversed with instructions to enter an award calculated on the basis of twelve months worth of Respondent’s income.
• On remand, the district court is instructed to make appropriate findings regarding Petitioner’s request for attorney fees and to rule upon that issue.

Reasons

• Per Timothy L. Garcia, J. (James J. Wechsler, J., and Jonathan B. Sutin, J., concurring), the appellate court found that the district court's calculation of interim support arrearage was based on a misinterpretation of a previously entered interim support order (paras 3-5). The appellate court also determined that the district court's award of spousal support was erroneously based on the incorrect interim arrearage calculation and that the child support award did not comply with statutory guidelines requiring a twelve-month average of the Respondent's income for calculation (paras 9, 10-14). The appellate court's decision to reverse and remand certain aspects of the district court's decree was based on these findings, aiming to ensure that the final decree accurately reflects the parties' financial obligations and rights under the law.