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 the Respondent-Appellant (Wife) appealing the district court's decision, which denied her motion to modify a memorandum of agreement due to a claimed mathematical error by a facilitator/mediator during court-ordered mediation/facilitation. The Wife argued that the error was in the marital settlement agreement (MSA) and sought modification outside the one-year period of limitation.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Petitioner-Appellee (Husband): [Not applicable or not found]
• Respondent-Appellant (Wife): Argued that the marital settlement agreement contained a mathematical error due to a facilitator/mediator's mistake during mediation. She contended that exceptional circumstances related to her disability and status as a survivor of abuse justified filing the motion outside the one-year limitation period. Additionally, she later suggested that the mistake in the MSA was due to fraud or misleading by the mediator or other parties (paras 3-5).

Legal Issues

• Whether the alleged error in the marital settlement agreement was due to a clerical error or misrepresentation, justifying modification outside the one-year period of limitation.
• Whether the concept of mutual mistake applied to the case.
• Whether the district court was required to hold a hearing on the Wife's motion.
• Whether exceptional circumstances justified the Wife's late filing of her motion.
• Whether the alleged mistake in the MSA was a result of fraud or misleading by the mediator or other parties.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order denying the Wife's motion to modify the memorandum of agreement.

Reasons

• DUFFY, Judge (with J. MILES HANISEE, Judge and GERALD E. BACA, Judge concurring): The Court found that the Wife's arguments, including those regarding exceptional circumstances and fraud or misleading by the mediator, were not preserved for appeal as they were not presented to the district court in her original motion or adequately supported by the record. The Court also noted that the Wife's motion was filed outside the one-year period of limitation, and her arguments did not meet the requirements to justify modification of the marital settlement agreement under Rule 1-060(B). The repetition of earlier arguments without specifically pointing out errors of law and fact did not fulfill the requirement to challenge the proposed summary disposition. The Court remained unpersuaded by the Wife's new arguments presented in her memorandum in opposition, as they were not preserved at the district court level or supported by the record (paras 2-6).