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, Wil Pacheco, who was initially ordered in 2009 to pay the appellee, Patsy Pacheco, $2000 per month in modifiable spousal support. In 2014, the appellant moved to either terminate the spousal support or decrease the amount he owed due to his changed circumstances, which included the closure of his dental practice, a reduction in income, and deteriorating health (para 2).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: Argued for the termination or reduction of spousal support payments due to the closure of his dental practice, a reduction in income, and deteriorating health. Additionally, contended that the district court erred in not deducting a $300 monthly student loan payment for his adult child from his income and in awarding attorney fees to the appellee (paras 2, 4, 7).
• Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court abused its discretion in reducing the appellant's spousal support payments from $2000 to $1200 per month.
• Whether the district court erred in its determination of the appellant's income by not deducting a $300 monthly student loan payment.
• Whether the district court erred in awarding attorney fees to the appellee.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision to reduce the appellant's spousal support payments to $1200 per month and the awarding of attorney fees to the appellee (para 10).

Reasons

• Per Michael E. Vigil, Chief Judge (James J. Wechsler and Roderick T. Kennedy, Judges concurring):
  The Court found that the appellant did not demonstrate that the district court's reduction of spousal support was "contrary to all reason" and thus did not meet his burden on appeal (para 3). The appellant's argument regarding the non-deduction of a $300 monthly student loan payment for his adult child from his income was not supported by any authority, leading the Court to conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion on this issue (para 4). Regarding the award of attorney fees to the appellee, the Court noted that the appellant did not provide specific errors in fact or law to challenge the district court's decision, which considered the gross disparity in income between the appellant and the appellee (para 7). The Court also addressed the appellant's contention that the district court imposed an undue burden on him to make a settlement offer, finding that the appellant did not provide authority to support his claim of an abuse of discretion (para 8). Lastly, the Court dismissed the appellant's argument about the district court's alleged prejudgment on the issue of attorney fees, as this argument was not raised in the appellant's docketing statement nor was there a motion to amend the docketing statement to include this issue (para 9).