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

• Petitioner Jack G. Spengler appealed the district court's final decree in a dissolution of marriage case against Respondent Cynthia M. Spengler. The appeal raised several issues, including due process violations, income imputation in child support calculations, community property equalization, tax deductions allocation, sanctions against the Respondent, errors in findings of fact and conclusions of law, the admissibility of an expert witness's report and testimony, and the awarding of attorney fees to the Respondent.

Procedural History

• District Court of Otero County, June 10, 2008: Issued a final decree on custody and visitation, determining that New Mexico no longer had exclusive jurisdiction over child custody matters due to the parties' residence in Virginia.
• Lynchburg Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court, October 21, 2009: Issued an order stating it had exclusive jurisdiction over custody and visitation matters following an agreement between the parties and the last order of the New Mexico Court.
• Circuit Court in Lynchburg, January 4, 2011: Entered a "Final Custody and Visitation Order" after Petitioner appealed the Virginia court's decision.

Parties' Submissions

• Petitioner-Appellant: Argued that the district court denied him due process, improperly imputed income to him for child support calculations, failed to equalize community property correctly, allocated tax deductions improperly, denied sanctions against the Respondent, committed manifest error in its findings and conclusions, admitted improper expert witness report and testimony, and awarded attorney fees to the Respondent without following proper procedures.
• Respondent-Appellee: Filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction under the Uniform Child-Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA), arguing that Virginia, not New Mexico, had exclusive jurisdiction over child-custody determinations.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court denied the Petitioner due process.
• Whether the district court erred in imputing income to the Petitioner and not to the Respondent for child support calculations.
• Whether the district court properly equalized community property.
• Whether the district court allocated tax deductions properly.
• Whether the district court erred in denying sanctions against the Respondent.
• Whether the district court committed manifest error in its findings of fact and conclusions of law.
• Whether the district court improperly admitted the expert witness's report and testimony.
• Whether the district court awarded attorney fees to the Respondent without following proper procedures.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the district court.

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, per Judge James J. Wechsler, with Judges Roderick T. Kennedy and Linda M. Vanzi concurring, found no due process violation as the district court had considered considerable evidence over a lengthy period and Petitioner did not indicate how new evidence would have altered the decision. The court found substantial evidence supported the district court's findings on imputation of income, equalization of community property, and tax allocation. The court also found no abuse of discretion in the district court's denial of sanctions, handling of the expert report and testimony, and the awarding of attorney fees. The court dismissed the appeal regarding child-custody determination modification under the UCCJEA, as the parties now resided in Virginia, which had exclusive jurisdiction.