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 petitioner and respondent began a long-distance romantic relationship in November 2019, with the petitioner residing in New Mexico and the respondent in South Carolina. The petitioner filed a petition for an order of protection against the respondent, claiming abuse both in person and online. A temporary order of protection was issued, and a merits hearing was scheduled. The respondent was served but claimed not to have received all documents. He requested a continuance due to work and time zone confusion but was ultimately late to the telephonic hearing, resulting in a default order of protection against him for ten years (paras 2-5).

Procedural History

• District Court of Bernalillo County: Issued a default order of protection against the respondent and denied his subsequent motion for a rehearing and motion to set aside the default order (paras 5-7).

Parties' Submissions

• Petitioner: Argued that the respondent abused her both in person and online, warranting an order of protection under the Family Violence Protection Act (para 2).
• Respondent: Claimed that the failure to attend the hearing was due to work and time zone confusion, argued for excusable mistake and inadvertence, fraud by the petitioner, and abuse of process, and sought to have the default order of protection set aside (paras 4, 6-7).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in not granting the respondent's motion to set aside the default order of protection.
• Whether the district court erred in not granting the respondent a hearing on his motion to set aside.
• Whether the district court erred in not recusing the hearing officer (para 1).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision, denying the respondent's appeal on all counts (para 24).

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, per Judge Gerald E. Baca, with Judges J. Miles Hanisee and Katherine A. Wray concurring, found that the respondent did not demonstrate that the district court erred. The court applied a multi-factor balancing test to determine whether any neglect by the respondent was excusable under Rule 1-060(B)(1) but concluded that the respondent failed to develop his arguments sufficiently. The court also found the respondent's claims of fraud and abuse of process to be undeveloped and unsupported by the record. Additionally, the court dismissed the respondent's claims regarding the refusal to hold a hearing on his motion to set aside and the failure to excuse the hearing officer due to a lack of supporting authority. The court emphasized that default judgments are not favored and cases should be decided on their merits but upheld the district court's decision due to the respondent's failure to provide compelling arguments or evidence to support his claims (paras 8-23).