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 over spousal support following the dissolution of a thirty-four-year marriage between Verble Wayne Chase (Husband) and Lamora Gaynel Chase (Wife). Husband filed for divorce in October 2016, leading to proceedings where both parties presented their financial situations and preferences regarding the form of spousal support. The district court ruled in favor of a lump sum payment option for spousal support, which Husband elected to pay and Wife accepted (paras 2-8).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Husband: Argued that the district court's decision to offer a lump sum payment option for spousal support was appropriate and that Wife waived her right to appeal by accepting the lump sum payment (para 10).
• Wife: Contended that the district court erred in terminating its ongoing jurisdiction over spousal support and misapplied statutory guidelines in determining the amount and duration of spousal support. Wife also proposed an economic-necessity exception to the benefit of the judgment rule (paras 9, 16-17).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in terminating its ongoing jurisdiction over spousal support under NMSA 1978, Section 40-4-7(F) (1997) (para 9).
• Whether the district court abused its discretion in determining the amount and duration of the spousal support Husband was required to provide Wife (para 9).

Disposition

• The district court's decision regarding the award of spousal support is affirmed (para 26).

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, with Judge Jacqueline R. Medina writing and Judges Briana H. Zamora and Jane B. Yohalem concurring, held that the district court properly terminated its ongoing jurisdiction over spousal support because the lump sum payment was not subject to modification under Section 40-4-7(F). The court also found that Wife waived her right to appeal the spousal support award by accepting the lump sum payment, and no exception to the benefit of the judgment rule applied. The court declined to adopt a new "economic-necessity exception" to the benefit of the judgment rule, as proposed by Wife, because it would be inappropriate to do so based on circumstances created by Wife's own actions (paras 11-25).