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 over child support between the Mother, the Petitioner-Appellant, and the Father, the Respondent-Appellee. The Mother appealed the district court's refusal to set aside a stipulated order that arose from an agreement to settle the dispute over child support. The Mother contended that the settlement agreement and the stipulated judgment should be vacated due to alleged gross negligence or malfeasance on the part of her attorney, which she claimed unduly pressured her into agreeing to the settlement.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Mother: Argued that she did not want to enter into the settlement and only did so because her attorney threatened her and misled her about the consequences of rejecting the settlement offer. She regretted the settlement immediately after entering into it and dismissed her attorney as a result.
• Father: Contended that the Mother did not preserve the issue of attorney misconduct either at the district court level or on appeal and argued that the Mother has not met the requirements for reopening a settlement-based judgment under Rule 1-060(B) NMRA.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in not holding a hearing to determine the truth of the Mother's allegations of gross negligence or malfeasance by her attorney, which, if true, may constitute grounds for avoidance of a settlement agreement.
• Whether the Mother preserved the issue of attorney misconduct for appeal.
• Whether the Mother has made a sufficient preliminary showing indicating that attorney malfeasance or gross negligence may have unduly pressured her into agreeing to the settlement, warranting a hearing on her motion to set aside the stipulated child support order.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's decision and remanded for a hearing on the Mother's motion to set aside the stipulated child support order.

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, led by Judge Linda M. Vanzi with Judges James J. Wechsler and J. Miles Hanisee concurring, found that the Mother's submissions were sufficient to preserve for appeal the issue of whether her agreement to settle was so tainted by the egregious misconduct of her attorney that the settlement should not stand. The Court emphasized that the preservation requirement should not be applied in an unduly technical manner to avoid reaching issues that would otherwise result in reversal. The Court also noted that the rules requiring preservation of questions for review are designed to do justice and highlighted the importance of considering the rights of the child involved in the case. The Court concluded that it was premature to address the merits of the Mother's request to vacate the settlement and resulting stipulated order, as the primary issue was the procedural error of denying the Mother a hearing on her motion despite her sufficient preliminary showing of attorney malfeasance or gross negligence (paras 1-7).