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 Brandon Kuykendall (Father) and Kristen Weger (Mother) over child custody and child support payments. The district court had previously awarded Mother permanent legal and physical custody of their child and ordered Father to pay child support arrearages and ongoing monthly child support. Father filed a motion to modify his monthly child support payments, which was granted by the district court. However, Father's appeal challenges earlier court decisions regarding the appointment of a guardian ad litem for custody evaluation and the custody and child support orders themselves, rather than the modification of child support payments (paras 1-2).

Procedural History

• District Court, November 9, 2015: Awarded permanent legal and physical custody of Child to Mother and ordered Father to pay child support arrearages and ongoing monthly child support.
• District Court, November 18, 2019: Held Father in civil contempt for failing to comply with the 2015 judgment and granted Father’s motion to modify monthly child support payments going forward (para 1).

Parties' Submissions

• Father: Challenges the district court’s May 23, 2013 order appointing a guardian ad litem for child custody evaluation and the November 9, 2015 judgment granting custody to Mother and ordering child support payments. Claims error in these decisions but does not allege error in the November 18, 2019 judgment and order of contempt or the modification of child support (para 2).
• New Mexico Child Support Enforcement Division (Intervenor): Argues that the district court’s November 9, 2015 judgment was final, making Father’s appeal untimely and contends that the Court lacks jurisdiction to consider Father’s appeal (para 4).

Legal Issues

• Whether the Court has jurisdiction to consider Father’s appeal from the district court’s 2013 order appointing a guardian ad litem and the 2015 judgment on child custody and child support, given the timeliness of the appeal (para 3).
• Whether the November 9, 2015 judgment constitutes a final judgment, thereby affecting the Court's jurisdiction over Father's appeal (paras 4-9).

Disposition

• The Court dismissed Father’s appeal due to lack of jurisdiction, as the appeal was untimely (para 10).

Reasons

• Per Yohalem, J. (Hanisee, C.J., and Ives, J., concurring): The Court concluded it lacks jurisdiction to consider Father’s appeal because it was untimely. The New Mexico Child Support Enforcement Division’s argument that the November 9, 2015 judgment was final and thus the appeal was out of time was accepted. The Court emphasized that its jurisdiction is limited to appeals from final judgments, interlocutory orders that practically dispose of the merits of an action, and final orders after entry of judgment which affect substantial rights. The November 9, 2015 judgment was deemed to satisfy the requirements for a final judgment, resolving both the custody dispute and child support issues, and Father’s motion to modify child support did not reopen the district court’s final judgment on these matters. The Court also noted that the district court has jurisdiction to modify a child support judgment only prospectively, based on changed circumstances since the entry of the judgment, and no change may be made in the prior judgment (paras 4-9).