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 a dispute over the calculation of child support between Petitioner Elaine F. Martinez and Respondent Richard J. Montoya. The district court awarded child support to Martinez, which Montoya challenged. The appeal focuses on the initial retroactive support order covering multiple years during which regular child support payments had not been made by Montoya.

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Rio Arriba County, Sylvia F. LaMar, District Judge, March 29, 2018.

Parties' Submissions

• Petitioner-Appellee: Argued in favor of the child support award as determined by the district court.
• Respondent-Appellant: Contended that the district court's calculation of child support for the first year should be considered an initial calculation and that calculations for subsequent years should be treated as modifications. Argued that the custodial arrangements were equally shared, that a $10,000 payment was for child support despite originating from an insurance payment, and that his income for 2011 was improperly computed by including insurance claim proceeds.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court's calculation of child support for multiple years should be considered an initial calculation or modifications subject to different legal requirements.
• Whether the district court abused its discretion in its findings regarding the custodial schedule.
• Whether a $10,000 insurance payment to Respondent should be considered a child support payment.
• Whether Respondent's income for 2011 was improperly computed by including insurance claim proceeds.

Disposition

• The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

Reasons

• Per Michael E. Vigil, J. (J. Miles Hanisee, J., and Emil J. Kiehne, J., concurring):
  Issue 1: The court concluded that the district court's yearly calculations of back child support were not an abuse of discretion, as the calculations pertained to an initial retroactive support order covering multiple years without a pre-existing order, thus not subject to modification requirements (para 3).
  Issue 2: The court found no abuse of discretion by the district court in its determination of the custodial schedule, noting that conflicting evidence existed and substantial evidence supported the court's conclusion (para 4).
  Issue 3: The court determined that the $10,000 payment from an insurance claim, argued by Respondent to be for child support, was not mischaracterized by the district court. The court emphasized its role is not to reweigh evidence or judge witness credibility (para 5).
  Issue 4: The court was not persuaded by Respondent's argument that insurance proceeds reported as taxable income should have been deducted from his gross income for child support calculations, noting the lack of authority provided by Respondent for this position and affirming the district court's findings (para 6).