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's appeal from orders and judgments that held him in contempt and required him to pay child support arrears.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Respondent-Appellant: Challenged the validity of the 1997 order requiring him to pay child support and argued that the award of attorney fees to the Petitioner was improper due to the law firm's past representation of him and the district court judge’s former association with counsel for Petitioner (paras 2-3).
• Petitioner-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the 1997 order requiring the Respondent to pay child support was valid.
• Whether the award of attorney fees to the Petitioner was improper due to the law firm's past representation of the Respondent and the district court judge’s former association with counsel for Petitioner.

Disposition

• The court affirmed the orders and judgments against the Respondent, requiring him to pay child support arrears and the award of attorney fees to the Petitioner (para 4).

Reasons

• Per Michael D. Bustamante, J. (Michael E. Vigil, Chief Judge, and J. Miles Hanisee, Judge, concurring):
  The court found the Respondent's challenge to the validity of the 1997 child support order to be abandoned due to a lack of responsive argument in his memorandum in opposition (para 2).
  The court rejected the Respondent's challenge to the award of attorney fees based on the law firm's past representation of him and the district court judge’s former association with counsel for Petitioner. The court held that none of the professional conduct rules cited by the Respondent mandated disqualification and noted the absence of supporting legal analysis and authority for his claims (para 3).