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 appellant's motion to set aside a 2006 decree of dissolution of marriage and to divide undivided community property. The appellant argued that the judgment was void due to various purported defects in the district court's actions, including misapplication and omission of necessary information regarding the marital estate in affidavits and documents, and elements of fraud.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: Argued that the judgment was void due to misapplication and omission of vital information regarding the marital estate and elements of fraud in affidavits and documents submitted to the district court. Asserted that these defects denied due process and rendered the judgment void.
• Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court's judgment of dissolution of marriage and the failure to divide undivided community property can be set aside based on claims of misapplication and omission of vital information, and elements of fraud.
• Whether the judgment is void and can be challenged at any time due to the alleged defects.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's denial of the appellant's motion to set aside the decree of dissolution of marriage and motion to divide undivided community property.

Reasons

• Per JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge (CYNTHIA A. FRY, Judge, MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge concurring):
  The Court of Appeals considered the appellant's memorandum in opposition to the proposed summary disposition and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellant's motion was based on Rule 1-060(B) NMRA, which allows for relief from a final judgment for reasons including mistake, newly discovered evidence, fraud, the judgment being void, and other justifying reasons. The Court noted that the appellant's motion, filed over four years after the judgment, did not meet the one-year limitation for motions based on mistake, newly discovered evidence, or fraud, but acknowledged that void judgments could be challenged at any time. However, the appellant failed to specify how the alleged defects rendered the judgment void or to pursue available avenues of relief, such as challenging the affidavits and documents in district court, bringing a motion for relief within one year for fraud, or seeking relief through an independent action for undistributed property. The Court found no denial of due process that would render the judgment void and affirmed the district court's decision for these reasons.