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

• Frank Esparza (Husband) and Ernestine Esparza (Wife) were married on November 27, 1981. After approximately twenty-eight years of marriage, Wife filed for divorce. The trial focused on the division of marital property, including Husband's retirement account, annual leave, credit card debt, and additional income earned by Wife. The district court made several decisions to equalize the division of assets and liabilities between the parties (para 2).

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Sandoval County, John F. Davis, District Judge, October 7, 2015.

Parties' Submissions

• Husband: Argued that the district court abused its discretion in dividing community property, specifically concerning his retirement account, annual leave, credit card debt, and the division of additional income earned by Wife (paras 4, 7, 14, 20, 24, 26, 28).
• Wife: Countered that the district court properly considered the division of community property, including Husband's annual leave and retirement account. She also argued that the district court did not err in its decisions regarding the credit card debt, spousal support, and the division of additional income (paras 4, 7, 16, 20, 24, 26).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court abused its discretion in the division of community property, including a retirement account, annual leave, credit card debt, and additional income earned by Wife.
• Whether the district court erred in its decisions regarding spousal support and the division of Husband's deferred compensation.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the district court, finding no abuse of discretion in its decisions regarding the division of community property, spousal support, and deferred compensation (para 29).

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, per J. Miles Hanisee, with Michael E. Vigil, Chief Judge, and Cynthia A. Fry, Judge, concurring, held that:
  The district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding Husband his accrued annual leave, as it was properly before the court and supported by evidence (paras 4-6).
  The district court's decisions regarding Husband's PERA retirement account did not constitute an abuse of discretion. The court properly considered the community interest in the retirement account and did not err in ordering Husband to select a specific option for survivor benefits (paras 7-12).
  The district court did not abuse its discretion in assigning the credit card debt to Husband as separate debt, given the lack of evidence that the new debt benefited both spouses (paras 14-17).
  The award of transitional spousal support to Wife was within the district court's discretion, considering the statutory factors and the evidence presented (paras 20-23).
  The district court's decisions regarding the interim division payment and Wife's additional income were not an abuse of discretion, as Husband failed to provide evidence supporting his assertions of error (paras 24-27).
  The Court declined to review Husband's undeveloped argument regarding the division of his deferred compensation, noting that the district court's order was sufficiently clear (para 28).