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 multiple appeals by the Respondent, Hamood Ur-Rehman Malik, against orders related to his divorce proceedings, including the intervention of the New Mexico Human Services Department (HSD), attorney fees, and property distribution. Malik, representing himself, contested the orders regarding attorney fees, a car payment to his ex-wife, child custody, child support, property division, spousal support, and alleged judicial bias.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Respondent-Appellant (Husband): Argued against the intervention of HSD, the order to pay attorney fees, the order to provide a car or cash to his ex-wife, and claimed errors in child custody, child support, property division, and spousal support decisions. He also alleged judicial bias and fraud in the settlement agreement.
• Intervenor-Appellee (HSD): Supported the court's proposed disposition, which included their intervention in the case.
• Petitioner-Appellee (Wife) and Intervenors-Appellees (Sutin, Thayer & Browne): Their specific arguments are not detailed in the provided text.

Legal Issues

• Whether the New Mexico Human Services Department (HSD) had the right to intervene in the case.
• Whether the district court erred in ordering the Husband to pay $20,000 in attorney fees plus costs to the Wife’s former counsel.
• Whether the district court erred in ordering the Husband to give the Wife a car or $5,000.
• Whether the district court erred in its decisions regarding child custody, child support, property division, and spousal support.
• Whether the district court exhibited bias against the Husband.

Disposition

• The appeal regarding child custody, child support, property division, and spousal support was dismissed due to non-finality of orders.
• The court affirmed the orders related to HSD’s intervention, attorney fees, and the car payment.

Reasons

• J. Miles Hanisee, Judge (with Linda M. Vanzi, Chief Judge, and Julie J. Vargas, Judge concurring): The court found that the orders related to HSD’s intervention, attorney fees, and the car payment were final and appealable. The court did not have jurisdiction to review non-final orders, leading to the dismissal of appeals related to child custody, child support, property division, and spousal support. The court was not persuaded by the Husband’s arguments against HSD’s intervention, the attorney fees, and the car payment orders. The allegations of judicial bias were deemed insufficient without support from the court record (paras 1-17).