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 over the inclusion of child care expenses in determining the amount of child support owed. The petitioner objected to the hearing officer's recommendation regarding child support, specifically challenging the inclusion of day care expenses as part of the child support calculation (paras 2, 6).

Procedural History

• District Court of Bernalillo County, March 3, 2015: Memorandum order affirming and adopting the family court hearing officer’s report as an order of the district court (para 1).

Parties' Submissions

• Petitioner: Argued that the hearing officer should not have included the respondent’s child care expenses in determining the amount of child support owed. Filed a "verified second motion to reconsider inclusion on the child support worksheet of day care expense" alleging violation of NMSA Section 40-4-9.1(H) and applicable law (paras 2, 6).
• Respondent: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the hearing officer erred in including the respondent’s child care expenses in determining the amount of child support owed (para 2).

Disposition

• The appeal was dismissed due to lack of a final order, as the district court had not ruled on the petitioner's motion for reconsideration at the time of the appeal (para 7).

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, with Judge J. Miles Hanisee authoring the opinion and concurrence from Chief Judge Michael E. Vigil and Judge Timothy L. Garcia, dismissed the appeal as premature. The court determined that the petitioner's motion for reconsideration, filed within thirty days of the district court's memorandum order, was directed at the final judgment and thus halted the time for filing an appeal until the district court made an express disposition on that motion. The court found that the petitioner's motion rendered the order non-final, leading to the conclusion that the appeal was premature due to the absence of a final order (paras 3-7).