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 appellant, Nigel Lachey, formerly known as Joshua Huffman, who is the father of a child born in April 1999. The child has reached the age of majority. In 2003, the district court set the appellant's monthly child support obligation and determined arrearage. Over the years, the arrearage increased substantially. The appellant sought to cease the collection of child support arrears, claiming, among other things, that the payments had been waived and alleging due process violations (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• Human Servs Dep’t v. Huffman, No. A-1-CA-36998, mem. op. (N.M. Ct. App. July 31, 2018): The Court rejected the appellant's attack on the 2003 order, including his claim that the payments had been waived.

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: Argued for the complete elimination of child support arrearage, claiming past payments had been waived and alleging due process violations in the original order (para 3).
• Appellee New Mexico Human Services Department: [Not applicable or not found]
• Appellee Crysol Huffman: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the appellant's current claims, including the waiver of payments and due process violations, are barred under the law of the case doctrine.
• Whether any new claims presented by the appellant fall outside the scope of the law of the case doctrine and provide grounds for setting aside the 2003 order.

Disposition

• The Court affirmed the district court's order addressing the appellant's motion to cease the collection of child support arrears (para 5).

Reasons

• The Court, consisting of Judges Jacqueline R. Medina, Megan P. Duffy, and Shammara H. Henderson, concluded that the appellant's claims were barred under the law of the case doctrine, as they had been addressed in a previous appeal. The Court declined to revisit these issues, stating that the appellant had not established that revisiting them would correct any manifest unjustness. Additionally, the Court found that the appellant had not presented any new claims that would warrant setting aside the 2003 order based on mistake or misrepresentation. The Court deferred to the district court and the hearing officer regarding the credibility of statements made by Petitioner Crysol Huffman (paras 3-4).