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 an appeal from the district court order approving the stipulated final decree of dissolution of marriage between Petitioner-Appellee and Respondent-Appellant. The core of the dispute appears to revolve around the Respondent's contention regarding the treatment of his out-of-court testimony and his consent to the mediated agreement.

Procedural History

• District Court of Sandoval County, Cheryl Hein Johnston, District Judge: Approved the stipulated final decree of dissolution of marriage.

Parties' Submissions

• Petitioner-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]
• Respondent-Appellant: Argued that his out-of-court testimony should be treated the same as in-court testimony in a similar case and contended there was no indication he consented to the mediated agreement.

Legal Issues

• Whether the Respondent's out-of-court testimony should be treated the same as in-court testimony in a similar case.
• Whether there was an indication that the Respondent consented to the mediated agreement.

Disposition

• The district court’s stipulated final decree of dissolution of marriage was affirmed.

Reasons

• J. Miles Hanisee, Chief Judge, with Jennifer L. Attrep, Judge, and Briana H. Zamora, Judge, concurring: The Court considered the Respondent's memorandum in opposition but found the arguments unavailing. The Court was unpersuaded by the Respondent's claims regarding the treatment of his out-of-court testimony and his consent to the mediated agreement, affirming the district court's decision based on the lack of persuasive facts, law, or argument to the contrary (paras 1-4).