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 Respondent, Andrew M. Ortiz, appealing a district court order that denied his motion to set aside his divorce decree and marital settlement agreement with Petitioner, Carmen V. Ortiz. The divorce decree and marital settlement agreement were entered in February 2011. In January 2016, the Respondent filed a motion to set aside these documents, claiming they were the product of fraud by the Petitioner. Additionally, the Respondent argued that his signature was forged, constituting a "fraud upon the court."

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Sandoval County, Cheryl Hein Johnston, District Judge, denying motion to set aside divorce decree and marital settlement agreement.

Parties' Submissions

• Respondent-Appellant: Argued that the district court erred in denying his motion to set aside the divorce decree and marital settlement agreement due to fraud by the Petitioner and forgery of his signature, which he claimed constituted a "fraud upon the court."
• Petitioner-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in denying the Respondent's motion to set aside the divorce decree and marital settlement agreement based on claims of fraud and forgery.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision to deny the Respondent's motion to set aside the divorce decree and marital settlement agreement.

Reasons

• Per LINDA M. VANZI, Chief Judge (HENRY M. BOHNHOFF, Judge, JENNIFER L. ATTREP, Judge concurring): The Court found that the Respondent's motion was filed well beyond the one-year time limit for raising fraud as a basis for setting aside a judgment under Rule 1-060(B)(3). The Court also noted that there was no dispute regarding the authenticity of the Respondent's signature on the marital settlement agreement, the parenting plan, and the final decree, thus rejecting the claim that the judgment was void due to forgery. The Court deferred to the district court's ruling under the standard of review, which is abuse of discretion, and supported the district court's discretion to refuse an evidentiary hearing given the undisputed validity of the signatures on the controlling documents (paras 2-4).