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 parties were married in 1998, with the Wife not working outside the home but receiving income as an officer of the Husband's business, IPR, Ltd., a Subchapter-S corporation of which the Husband is the sole owner and operator. The Husband received both a regular salary and additional cash distributions from IPR. The district court calculated the Husband's income based solely on his W-2 income, excluding non-W-2 income distributions from IPR for spousal support purposes. The court awarded the Wife transitional spousal support for eighteen months without findings on her future self-support (paras 2-5).

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Bernalillo County, Elizabeth E. Whitefield, District Judge.
• Certiorari Denied, December 11, 2013, No. 34,414. Released for Publication March 25, 2014.

Parties' Submissions

• Wife: Argued that the district court erred by not including the Husband's non-W-2 income distributions from IPR when calculating spousal support and contended that the duration of spousal support should be controlled by her ability to become self-sufficient (para 1).
• Husband: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether income received from a Subchapter-S corporation owned by a spouse should be included when calculating spousal support (para 1).
• Whether the duration of spousal support should be controlled by the recipient spouse’s ability to become self-sufficient (para 1).

Disposition

• The court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings regarding the inclusion of the Husband's income from the Subchapter-S corporation and the duration of spousal support (para 1).

Reasons

• Per Timothy L. Garcia, J. (Cynthia A. Fry, J., J. Miles Hanisee, J., concurring):
  The court found that, subject to certain exceptions, income from a Subchapter-S corporation owned by a spouse is included when calculating spousal support. The district court did not adequately address this issue nor provide an explanation for the deviation from standards prescribed for establishing the duration of spousal support and the inclusion of the Husband's income from the Subchapter-S corporation. The court concluded that the district court abused its discretion by excluding the Husband's non-W-2 income from IPR when calculating spousal support and by limiting the duration of spousal support to eighteen months without evidence addressing the future circumstances of the parties. The court emphasized that the calculation of spousal support should consider all income received by the parties, including non-W-2 income distributions from a Subchapter-S corporation, unless demonstrated that such distributions were used for business purposes or to offset tax obligations. The court also highlighted the need for the district court to make sufficient findings concerning the Wife's ability to support herself in the future (paras 1-27).