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 were married in 1980 in Mexico and had six children, with one minor child at the time of divorce proceedings. The husband owned a pallet business, and the wife worked as a house cleaner and was employed at a local restaurant. The husband filed for divorce in 2014, citing incompatibility and irreconcilable differences (para 2-3).

Procedural History

• District Court of Doña Ana County, April 17, 2015: The trial court held a trial on the merits and entered a final decree of divorce on August 26, 2015 (para 3).

Parties' Submissions

• Husband: Challenged the district court’s allocation of income and expenses, valuation and allocation of community property and debts, and the amount of spousal support awarded to the wife. He also contested the time-sharing decision regarding their minor child and alleged the district court abused its discretion by ordering him to pay wife’s attorney fees and holding him in contempt (para 1).
• Wife: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court's allocation of income and expenses, valuation and allocation of community property and debts, and the amount of spousal support awarded to the wife were supported by substantial evidence.
• Whether the district court abused its discretion by ordering the husband to pay wife’s attorney fees and holding him in contempt.
• Whether the district court's time-sharing decision regarding their minor child was appropriate (para 1, 5, 14, 18).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals declined to address the husband's substantial evidence issues due to his failure to abide by the rules of appellate procedure. The contempt and time-sharing issues were declined for review as moot. The district court's orders on the allocation of income and expenses, community property and debts, spousal support, and attorney fees were affirmed (para 1, 13, 17, 19-20).

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals found that the husband failed to comply with the appellate rules by not presenting all evidence bearing upon the issues, including evidence contrary to his position. This failure did not meet his burden of showing how the district court erred. The appellate court emphasized the importance of following appellate rules to ensure the efficient and fair administration of justice. The contempt issue was deemed moot as the husband did not respond to the wife's assertions regarding its mootness, and the time-sharing issue was also moot since the child reached the age of majority (paras 9-13, 16-19).