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 between a mother (Petitioner-Appellee) and a father (Respondent-Appellant) over the modification of child support. Initially, both parties agreed to use a monthly income figure near the upper limit of the child support guideline schedule for settlement purposes, despite knowing it was based on an income figure far lower than the father's actual earnings. The mother later moved for an upward modification of child support, leading to the current appeal by the father against the district court's order for modification (para 2).

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Bernalillo County, Jane C. Levy, District Judge, July 31, 2018.

Parties' Submissions

• Mother: Argued for an upward modification of child support based on a change of circumstances, specifically that the father's 2016 monthly income had increased significantly compared to the income figure agreed upon in the Marital Settlement Agreement (MSA) (para 2).
• Father: Contended that the district court erred in calculating his 2016 income for the purpose of determining a change in circumstances. He argued that his actual gross monthly income at the time of the MSA should have been used for comparison, which would show a less-than-four-percent change. He also claimed that the mother failed to provide evidence of a material and substantial change in the child's needs and that the mother was using the child support for her own benefit, not just for the child's needs (paras 3-5, 7-8).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in modifying child support absent a demonstration by the mother that she was entitled to a statutory presumption of a material and substantial change in circumstances (para 1).
• Whether the district court erred in its calculation of the father's 2016 income for the purpose of determining a change in circumstances warranting a modification of child support (para 3).
• Whether the statutory presumption of a material and substantial change in circumstances was rebutted by the father (para 4).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s order for an upward modification of child support (para 9).

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, with J. Miles Hanisee, Judge, and concurrence by Stephen G. French, Judge, and Daniel J. Gallegos, Judge, found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in calculating child support and utilizing the applicable statutes. The court held that the comparison of the father's 2016 monthly income with the figure agreed upon in the MSA, which showed a change of more than twenty percent, was appropriate for presuming a change of circumstances under NMSA 1978, § 40-4-11.4(A). The court was not persuaded by the father's arguments that the statutory presumption was rebutted or that the district court failed to consider changes in custody and potential changes in his income. The court emphasized that parties are bound by their agreement in the MSA unless a provision limits future use of the agreed-upon income figure for modifications. The court also noted that the father could seek a modification of child support if his income changes in the future (paras 2-8).