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 Janice Carriere and Dennis Carriere, focusing on the division of marital property. Dennis Carriere (Respondent) sought to appeal the decree of dissolution issued by the district court, claiming issues related to the division of marital assets. However, the appeal was contested due to the timing of the notice of appeal filing.

Procedural History

• District Court of Bernalillo County, December 15, 2015: The decree of dissolution was entered, which Dennis Carriere sought to appeal.

Parties' Submissions

• Respondent-Appellant: Argued that a notice of appeal was timely filed and suggested that its absence from the record might be due to an error by the district court clerk’s office. A statement from former counsel supported this claim, suggesting the notice of appeal was timely filed on January 14, 2016, but a courtesy copy might have been mistakenly file stamped on January 30, 2016 (para 1).
• Petitioner-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the notice of appeal filed by Dennis Carriere was timely according to the procedural requirements.

Disposition

• The appeal was dismissed as untimely filed.

Reasons

• Per Michael E. Vigil, J. (Linda M. Vanzi, Chief Judge, and Stephen G. French, Judge, concurring):
  The court focused on the timeliness of the notice of appeal filed by Dennis Carriere. The initial notice of appeal was file stamped on January 30, 2016, beyond the deadline of January 14, 2016, as required by Rule 12-201(A)(2) NMRA. Despite the Respondent's claim of a timely filing and an assertion of a clerical error, the court issued an order of limited remand for the district court to investigate the filing date of the notice of appeal. The district court's findings indicated that the notice of appeal was indeed filed on January 30, 2016, a date when the clerk's office would not have been staffed to mistakenly file stamp a courtesy notice, thus dismissing the possibility of a clerical error. The electronic filing records further confirmed the late filing, leading to the dismissal of the appeal as untimely (paras 1-3).