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 divorce proceeding between Petitioner Renell Chavez and Respondent Carl J. Chavez. The district court awarded spousal support to the Petitioner in the amount of $1,100 per month. The Respondent appealed this decision, arguing that the Petitioner was not entitled to any support, the awarded amount was excessive, and the support was required to be paid for life.

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Sandoval County, Cheryl H. Johnston, District Judge: The district court issued a final decree of divorce and awarded spousal support to Petitioner in the amount of $1,100 per month.

Parties' Submissions

• Petitioner-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]
• Respondent-Appellant: Argued that the district court erred in awarding spousal support to the Petitioner, contending that the Petitioner was not entitled to support, the amount was excessive, and the support was to be paid for life (para 1).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in determining Petitioner was entitled to spousal support.
• Whether the amount of the spousal support award was excessive.
• Whether Respondent was required to pay spousal support for life.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision to award spousal support to the Petitioner in the amount of $1,100 per month (para 1).

Reasons

• Per M. Monica Zamora, with Linda M. Vanzi, Chief Judge, and Michael E. Vigil, Judge concurring:
  The Court of Appeals noted that it is improper to attach documents not part of the record on appeal, advising counsel for Respondent to adhere to procedural rules in the future (para 2).
  The Court pointed out that the district court is considered to have abused its discretion if it fails to consider relevant statutory factors in determining spousal support. However, the Respondent failed to cite any facts supporting the award, and counsel is responsible for setting out all relevant facts, including those supporting the district court’s decision (para 3).
  Despite Respondent's arguments that the district court abused its discretion by awarding $1,100 per month in spousal support, the Court found that Respondent did not present facts or evidence to support his claims. The Court also noted that proceedings before the special master were not on the record, but this did not prevent the Respondent from pointing out facts in favor of spousal support (para 4).
  The Court concluded that the district court did not violate Respondent's right to due process by adopting the special master’s recommendations without an evidentiary hearing, as it is within the court's discretion to do so (para 5).
  Respondent's objections to the special master’s recommendation regarding spousal support were found to be repetitive of the factual assertions made on appeal without demonstrating how the recommendation failed to account for or improperly weighed the statutory factors for spousal support. Thus, the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding spousal support (para 6).
  The Court found Respondent's argument that he is unable to seek modification of spousal support unavailing, concluding that the district court’s modifiable award of spousal support for an indefinite period does not amount to an abuse of discretion (para 7).