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 the petitioner (Husband) appealing the district court's decision to set aside the parties' marital settlement agreement (MSA). The district court had incorporated the MSA into the final divorce decree, effectively making it a judgment of the court. The Husband's appeal challenges the district court's authority to set aside the MSA after it had been merged with the final decree.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Petitioner (Husband): Argued that the district court's order setting aside the MSA did not affect a final order of the district court, i.e., the stipulated final judgment and decree, which remains in place. The Husband contends that the order setting aside the MSA is final and ripe for review.
• Respondent (Wife): [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court's order setting aside the parties' marital settlement agreement (MSA), which had been incorporated into the final divorce decree, constitutes a final order for purposes of appeal.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of a final order.

Reasons

• Per Timothy L. Garcia, J. (James J. Wechsler, J., and Jonathan B. Sutin, J., concurring): The Court of Appeals found the Husband's arguments unpersuasive, holding that once a settlement agreement is adopted and incorporated into a final divorce decree, it merges with the decree and becomes enforceable as any other judgment of the district court (para 4). The court also noted that Rule 1-060(B) NMRA applies to marital settlement agreements and resulting decrees, allowing for such decrees to be set aside in appropriate circumstances (para 5). The court concluded that the Husband's motion to amend the docketing statement to include the issue of whether the district court erred in setting aside the MSA pursuant to Rule 1-060(B) was without merit, as the MSA, once incorporated into a decree, is no longer just a contract but a judgment of the court (para 6).