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 the Petitioner-Appellee and the Respondent-Appellant regarding the division of retirement benefits following their divorce. The Respondent, acting pro se, challenged the division of retirement benefits as ordered in the final decree of divorce. This challenge came after a legal separation agreement had been entered into by both parties, which included provisions for the division of retirement benefits. The issue was seemingly resolved through a memorandum agreement signed by both parties and their attorneys, which was then incorporated into the final divorce decree.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Petitioner-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]
• Respondent-Appellant: Challenged the division of retirement benefits as ordered by the final decree of divorce, arguing that the division was not in accordance with the previously signed memorandum agreement.

Legal Issues

• Whether the division of retirement benefits as ordered in the final decree of divorce was in accordance with the memorandum agreement signed by the parties.

Disposition

• The district court's final decree of divorce, including the division of retirement benefits as stipulated in the memorandum agreement, was affirmed.

Reasons

• The Court, led by Chief Judge Linda M. Vanzi with Judges James J. Wechsler and Timothy L. Garcia concurring, affirmed the district court's decision. The Respondent's appeal focused on the division of retirement benefits. The Court noted that the Respondent had previously agreed to a division of benefits in a legal separation agreement, which was later incorporated into the final divorce decree. The Respondent did not seek to have the decree set aside in the district court but instead filed an appeal. The Court pointed out that the Respondent's remedy was to seek to set aside the agreement in the district court under Rule 1-060(B) NMRA. Additionally, the Respondent's response to the Court's calendar notice did not address the substantive issues of the appeal but instead pointed out a typographical error related to attorney fees, which was not part of the appeal. The Court concluded that the Respondent did not demonstrate any errors in the proposed disposition of the case, leading to the affirmation of the district court's decision (paras 1-4).