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 parties, previously married, entered into a marital settlement agreement (MSA) on January 28, 2008, addressing custody, child support, alimony, property division, and debt assumption. They agreed on child support amounts based on their respective incomes, with a scheduled reduction when the elder child reached majority. The MSA also detailed property distribution, notably awarding the marital residence to the father. Subsequently, the father sought to modify the child support, claiming a substantial change in circumstances due to an increase in the mother's income.

Procedural History

• District Court of Bernalillo County, February 1, 2008: The MSA was incorporated into the judgment and final decree of dissolution of marriage.
• District Court of Bernalillo County, January 26, 2009: The court denied the father's motion to modify child support, finding no substantial change in circumstances and that the original agreement was based on compromised income figures.

Parties' Submissions

• Father: Argued that a substantial change in circumstances had occurred due to an increase in the mother's income and sought a modification of child support.
• Mother: Denied that a substantial change in circumstances had occurred and maintained that the original child support agreement was based on compromised income figures, including her income from interest and dividends but excluding capital gains.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in determining that no substantial change in circumstances occurred warranting a modification of child support.
• Whether the district court abused its discretion by excluding capital gains from the mother's income for child support purposes.
• Whether the district court erred in determining that the mother's capital gains income would be excluded from future child support calculations.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order denying the father's motion to modify child support.

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, per Judge Timothy L. Garcia, with Judges James J. Wechsler and Robert E. Robles concurring, found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in its determinations. The MSA was deemed ambiguous regarding the inclusion of capital gains in the mother's income, and the district court's interpretation, which excluded capital gains, was supported by the record and consistent with the agreement's language. The court also found no substantial change in circumstances since the entry of the original child support order, noting that the mother's income, excluding capital gains, had not significantly changed. The court further declined to speculate on future child support calculations, emphasizing that child support orders could be modified upon a showing of a substantial change in circumstances.