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 Dikla Sophia Baranes (Wife) and Jacob Baranes (Husband), who were married in 2000 and share two minor daughters. Following their separation, Wife filed for dissolution of marriage. The dispute centers around the district court's method of calculating child support and its ruling that a property owned by the couple is Husband's sole and separate property.

Procedural History

• District Court of Bernalillo County: Granted Wife’s petition for dissolution of marriage, denied Wife's motion to reconsider the child support calculations and the ruling on the property's ownership.

Parties' Submissions

• Wife: Argued that the district court erred in its method of calculating child support by not accounting for the different timesharing arrangements for each child and erred in ruling that the property is Husband’s sole and separate property without adequate consideration or advice on her rights.
• Husband: Asserted that the appeal was untimely and defended the district court's decisions on child support and property ownership.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in using Worksheet B for calculating child support despite the differing timesharing arrangements for each child.
• Whether the district court erred in ruling that the property is Husband’s sole and separate property.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the district court's final order regarding both the child support calculation method and the ruling on the property's ownership.

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, consisting of Judges Kristina Bogardus, J. Miles Hanisee, and Megan P. Duffy, found that:
  On Child Support: The district court abused its discretion by using Worksheet B for calculating child support without considering the distinct timesharing arrangements for each child, contrary to the guidelines which require different worksheets based on the type of custody arrangement (paras 5-13).
  On Lafayette Property: The agreement designating the property as Husband’s separate property was voidable due to constructive fraud. The court found that Wife did not receive adequate consideration for signing away her interest in the property, and there was no evidence of full disclosure or independent legal advice, which is necessary to overcome the presumption of fraud in transactions between spouses (paras 14-22).