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 an appeal by the Respondent against the district court's order, which concluded that it lacked the authority to calculate back child support without a specific motion being filed.

Procedural History

• District Court of Lea County: The court concluded that it did not have the power to calculate back child support without a specific motion.

Parties' Submissions

• Petitioner-Appellee: Agreed with the Court of Appeals' proposed affirmance of the district court's decision.
• Respondent-Appellant: Sought reversal of the district court’s order, arguing that the court erred in concluding it lacked the power to calculate back child support without a specific motion.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in concluding that it did not have the power to calculate back child support without a specific motion.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order.

Reasons

• Per DUFFY, J. (IVES, J., and YOHALEM, J., concurring): The Court of Appeals decided to affirm the district court's order based on the Respondent's failure to demonstrate error in the district court’s ruling. The Petitioner filed a memorandum in support of the Court of Appeals' proposed affirmance, while the Respondent failed to file a memorandum in opposition. The Court referenced the principle that the burden is on the party opposing the proposed disposition to clearly point out errors in fact or law (para 1).