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 (Father) and the respondent (Mother) regarding child support arrearages for the period between 2000-2005, the termination of Father's child support obligation for his youngest daughter as of July 1, 2011, and a previously obtained judgment amount owed by Father to Mother. The district court issued a minute order on these issues, which was later corrected to adjust the judgment amount owed from $2,000 to $2,200 (para 1, 3).

Procedural History

• April 10, 2012, District Court of San Juan County: Issued a minute order on the child support dispute, determining Father's liabilities and obligations (para 1).
• May 8, 2012: Mother filed a motion for reconsideration of the April 10, 2012, minute order (para 2).
• May 17, 2012: The district court filed a corrected minute order, adjusting the judgment amount owed by Father from $2,000 to $2,200 (para 3).

Parties' Submissions

• Mother: Argued for reconsideration of the April 10, 2012, minute order and later sought an extension of time to file a notice of appeal, citing her wish to retain an attorney. She also mentioned suffering from migraine headaches and depression, an inability to afford an attorney, and a lack of awareness of strict procedural deadlines as reasons for her failure to file a timely notice of appeal (paras 2, 4, 5).
• Father: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the notice of appeal filed by Mother was timely pursuant to Rule 12-201(D) NMRA.
• Whether Mother demonstrated "excusable neglect" or "circumstances beyond her control" justifying an extension for filing the notice of appeal under Rule 12-201(E)(2) NMRA.

Disposition

• The appeal was dismissed due to the untimely filing of the notice of appeal by Mother (para 1).

Reasons

• The Court, consisting of Judges Jonathan B. Sutin, Michael D. Bustamante, and J. Miles Hanisee, unanimously concluded that the notice of appeal filed by Mother was untimely. The Court noted that the corrected minute order issued on May 17, 2012, was a final, appealable order and that Mother's motion for reconsideration was timely but did not extend the deadline for filing an appeal beyond the thirty days from the ruling on the motion. The Court found that Mother's request for an extension of time to file the notice of appeal was filed more than thirty days after the May 17, 2012, order and that her reasons for the delay did not constitute "excusable neglect" or "circumstances beyond her control" as required for an extension. The Court also noted that pro se litigants are required to comply with court rules and that confusion about procedural requirements does not justify an untimely filing. Finally, the Court observed that the district court did not have jurisdiction to grant an extension after sixty days from the entry of the appealable order, which in this case expired on July 16, 2012, making Mother's July 19, 2012, notice of appeal untimely (paras 1-5).