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 post-dissolution dispute between a husband and wife regarding the alimony provisions of their marital settlement agreement (MSA). The couple, married for approximately 28 years, agreed to a nonmodifiable lump sum alimony payment during mediation, which was incorporated into their final divorce decree. The husband later sought to set aside the alimony provisions, alleging misrepresentation by the wife regarding her income, earning capacity, and medical condition during mediation. The wife cross-appealed the trial court's initial denial of her request for attorney fees and costs (paras 1-12).
Procedural History
- District Court of Bernalillo County, August 28, 2003: Denied the husband's motion to set aside the alimony provisions of the MSA and denied the wife's request for attorney fees and costs (paras 11-12).
- District Court of Bernalillo County, November 13, 2003: Granted the wife's motion for reconsideration and awarded her attorney fees and costs. This order was later challenged as void for lack of jurisdiction (paras 30-32).
Parties' Submissions
- Appellant (Husband): Argued that the alimony provisions of the MSA should be set aside under Rule 1-060(B) due to misrepresentation, mistake, inequity, and unconscionability. He also claimed the MSA violated public policy and the Thirteenth Amendment. Additionally, he argued that the trial court erred in denying his motion for summary judgment and protective order (paras 9-29).
- Appellee (Wife): Contended that the MSA was valid and enforceable, as it was voluntarily agreed upon with legal counsel and mediation. She argued that the trial court's denial of her attorney fees and costs was improper and required findings of fact and conclusions of law (paras 19-21, 33).
Legal Issues
- Was the trial court correct in denying the husband's motion to set aside the alimony provisions of the MSA under Rule 1-060(B)?
- Did the trial court err in denying the husband's motion for summary judgment and protective order?
- Did the trial court have jurisdiction to grant the wife's motions for reconsideration of attorney fees and costs after the husband's notice of appeal?
- Was the trial court's initial denial of the wife's request for attorney fees and costs proper?
Disposition
- The trial court's denial of the husband's motion to set aside the alimony provisions of the MSA was affirmed.
- The trial court's order granting the wife's motions for reconsideration of attorney fees and costs was reversed as void for lack of jurisdiction.
- The trial court's initial denial of the wife's request for attorney fees and costs was reversed, and the matter was remanded for findings of fact and conclusions of law (paras 34-35).
Reasons
Per Fry J. (Alarid and Castillo JJ. concurring):
Denial of Husband's Motion to Set Aside the MSA: The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the husband's motion under Rule 1-060(B). The evidence showed that the husband voluntarily agreed to the nonmodifiable lump sum alimony after consulting legal and financial advisors. The wife's alleged misrepresentations about her income and medical condition were not proven to have substantially impeded the husband's decision-making. The husband's miscalculation of his future income did not justify relief under Rule 1-060(B)(3) or (5). The MSA was not unconscionable, and its enforcement did not violate the Thirteenth Amendment (paras 13-25).
Denial of Husband's Motion for Summary Judgment: The court correctly held that the statutory provisions cited by the husband did not apply to the nonmodifiable lump sum alimony agreed upon in the MSA. The husband's interpretation of the statutes was unreasonable (paras 26-28).
Denial of Husband's Motion for Protective Order: The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the husband's motion to discover evidence of the wife's alleged infidelity, as it was irrelevant to the issues under Rule 1-060(B) (para 29).
Jurisdiction Over Wife's Motions for Reconsideration: The trial court lost jurisdiction to grant the wife's motions for reconsideration of attorney fees and costs once the husband filed his notice of appeal. The subsequent order awarding fees and costs was void (paras 30-32).
Initial Denial of Wife's Request for Attorney Fees and Costs: The trial court erred in denying the wife's request without considering arguments or entering findings of fact and conclusions of law. The matter was remanded for proper consideration (para 33).