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 between Ivory Lynn Conrad (Mother) and Valentin Borissevitch (Father) over the calculation of Father's income for child support purposes. The contention arose from the district court's adoption of a domestic relations hearing officer's report, which calculated Father's income by averaging his income over the last six years, excluding his unusually high income in 2021, and excluding his rental income.

Procedural History

• District Court of Bernalillo County: The district court adopted the domestic relations hearing officer’s report, which included the contested income calculation for child support purposes.

Parties' Submissions

• Petitioner-Appellant (Mother): Argued that the district court abused its discretion by adopting the hearing officer’s report, which improperly calculated Father's income by excluding his high income in 2021 and his rental income. Additionally, Mother contended that the court erred in limiting child support interest and inappropriately denied costs and attorney fees.
• Respondent-Appellee (Father): Defended the income calculation method used by the hearing officer and adopted by the district court, arguing that the averaging of his income over multiple years was appropriate and that his 2021 income was rightly excluded. Father also argued that the exclusion of rental income was based on the lack of net income from those properties.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court abused its discretion in adopting the hearing officer’s calculation of Father's income for child support, which excluded his high income in 2021 and his rental income.
• Whether the district court erred in limiting child support interest.
• Whether the district court inappropriately denied costs and attorney fees.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded in part the district court's decision regarding the calculation of Father's income and the limitation of child support interest.
• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision not to award costs and attorney fees.

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, with Judges Kristina Bogardus, J. Miles Hanisee, and Jacqueline R. Medina concurring, found that:
  The district court abused its discretion in adopting the hearing officer’s improperly calculated income for Father by excluding his high income in 2021 and his rental income, which deviated from the child support guidelines (paras 3-13).
  The district court abused its discretion in awarding interest applicable only after Father becomes more than thirty days delinquent, contrary to NMSA 1978, Section 40-4-7.3 (A), which mandates interest accrual from the date support is delinquent (paras 15-16).
  The district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to award costs and attorney fees, as the denial was based on the parties' overly aggressive management of the case, not on Mother's inability to pay (paras 23-25).