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 petitioner's appeal against a district court order that allowed the respondent to relocate the children and modified custody accordingly.

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Bernalillo County, Gerard J. Lavelle, District Judge, June 13, 2013: The district court issued an order permitting the respondent to relocate the children and modifying custody.

Parties' Submissions

• Petitioner-Appellant: The petitioner appealed the district court's decision to allow the respondent to relocate the children and modify custody. However, specific arguments made by the petitioner are not detailed in the provided text.
• Respondent-Appellee: Specific arguments made by the respondent are not detailed in the provided text.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court's order permitting the respondent to relocate the children and modifying custody accordingly was appropriate.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order permitting the respondent to relocate the children and modifying custody accordingly.

Reasons

• LINDA M. VANZI, Judge, with RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Chief Judge, and MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge concurring: The Court of Appeals decided to affirm the district court's order based on the petitioner's failure to file a memorandum in opposition to the amended calendar notice proposing to affirm the district court's decision. The court referenced Rule 12-210(D)(3) NMRA, which states that failure to file a memorandum in opposition constitutes acceptance of the disposition proposed in the calendar notice. Additionally, the respondent's motion to expedite mandate was granted.