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 Peter De Geest (Respondent) against an order denying his motion for relief from judgment under Rule 1-060(B) NMRA. The core of the dispute appears to revolve around the Respondent's contention that the hearing officer and district court did not correctly calculate an offset, which was not in line with their intended calculations.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Respondent: Argued that the hearing officer abused her discretion by refusing to allow him to present evidence supporting his motion for relief from judgment. He maintained that additional evidence was necessary to establish an error in the calculation of the offset.
• Petitioner: Filed a memorandum in support of the court's notice proposing to affirm the order denying the Respondent's motion for relief from judgment.

Legal Issues

• Whether the hearing officer abused her discretion in refusing to permit the Respondent to present evidence in support of his Rule 1-060(B) motion.
• Whether the refusal to take additional evidence on the calculation of the offset was in error.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the order denying the Respondent's motion for relief from judgment.

Reasons

• Per M. Monica Zamora, with Michael D. Bustamante and Cynthia A. Fry concurring, the court concluded that the hearing officer did not abuse her discretion by refusing to allow the Respondent to present additional evidence. The court observed that the type of error claimed by the Respondent, concerning the calculation of the offset, did not necessitate further evidence to be resolved. It was noted that the Respondent's attorney had the opportunity to argue the case before the hearing officer, which was deemed sufficient for explaining why the calculations did not reflect the hearing officer's intent (paras 1-2). The court also highlighted that the district court's discretion includes the authority to control the presentation of evidence and to decide when further evidence is unnecessary (para 2). Lastly, the Respondent's failure to address the district court's ruling regarding the distribution of personal property in his response was taken as acceptance of the proposed disposition, further supporting the decision to affirm (para 3).