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 dispute between Robert Feinberg (Husband) and Kimberly Feinberg (Wife) regarding child and spousal support obligations following their divorce. The couple had entered into a marital settlement agreement that outlined the terms for child and spousal support, which became effective upon their divorce decree. Disagreements arose concerning the interpretation of the agreement's provisions on child support and the modification of spousal support obligations due to changes in the Husband's income and the Wife's employment status.

Procedural History

• District Court of Bernalillo County, Gerard J. Lavelle, District Judge: Issued two judgments relating to the Husband's child support and spousal support obligations, which led to the Husband's appeal.

Parties' Submissions

• Husband: Argued that the district court erred in interpreting the marital settlement agreement regarding his child support obligation and in modifying his spousal support obligation due to a substantial change in his income and the Wife's need for support.
• Wife: Filed a motion alleging the Husband's willful violation of the agreement and divorce decree regarding spousal and child support. She argued for the enforcement of the agreement's provisions, which required non-modifiable payments over four years for child support and sought an increase in spousal support based on the Husband's failure to comply with the agreement.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in interpreting the marital settlement agreement as it pertained to the Husband's child support obligation.
• Whether the district court erred in modifying the Husband's spousal support obligation.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's judgment regarding child support, affirming the judgment pertaining to spousal support. It remanded the case for an assessment of the Wife's attorney fees incurred in the spousal support aspect of the appeal and for further proceedings as may be appropriate.

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals found that the district court erred in its interpretation of the marital settlement agreement's provisions on child support, specifically in resolving the perceived conflict between two provisions by extending the Husband's child support obligations beyond the date the youngest child turned eighteen. The court concluded that the agreement's provisions could be read harmoniously without extending the child support obligation (paras 13-25). Regarding spousal support, the Court of Appeals held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in modifying the Husband's spousal support obligation to a flat rate of $3,000 monthly, considering the substantial and material change in the Husband's income and the Wife's employment status. The court found the district court's decision consistent with statutory law and the agreement's provisions (paras 26-32).