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, Husband and Wife, were married in 1999 and had two children. They jointly operated a guided hunting business and received income from this business as well as Social Security Disability Income (SSDI) benefits, with derivative benefits for their children. The Wife petitioned for dissolution of the marriage in 2015, leading to a trial on contested issues including child support and the division of property (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• District Court of Cibola County: Issued a decision ordering child support and dividing the parties’ real and personal property. The court later made amendments to its original decision based on Husband's motion but largely ratified the original decision (para 3).

Parties' Submissions

• Husband: Contended the district court erred in calculating child support, characterizing certain real property and the marital residence as community property, and dividing miscellaneous property (para 1).
• Wife: Argued for the dissolution of the marriage, leading to the trial on contested issues including child support and division of property. Specific arguments made by the Wife are not detailed in the provided text.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in calculating child support.
• Whether the district court erred in characterizing certain real property and the marital residence as community property.
• Whether the district court erred in dividing miscellaneous property (para 1).

Disposition

• The New Mexico Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s decision on all contested issues (para 1).

Reasons

• ATTREP, Judge:
  Child Support: The Court found that the district court did not err in calculating the parties' incomes for child support purposes, including considerations of Husband's SSDI and business income, and Wife's employment income. The Court also upheld the district court's decision to grant Husband a conditional credit for the SSDI derivative payments for the children, and found no abuse of discretion in the district court's use of Worksheet A for calculating child support despite Husband's contention that a different method should have been used (paras 4-16).
  Real Property and the Marital Residence: The Court reviewed the district court's characterization of fifty-three acres of real property and the marital residence as community property and found substantial evidence supporting this characterization. The Court noted that the property was acquired during the marriage and that both parties contributed to its purchase and maintenance (paras 17-20).
  Miscellaneous Property: The Court examined Husband's claims regarding the improper characterization, valuation, or division of various items, including vehicle accessories, a trailer, tools, furniture, cabins, firearms, horses, and dogs. The Court found substantial evidence supported the district court’s decisions on these items and concluded there was no abuse of discretion in the distribution of assets between the parties (paras 21-23).
  Concurrence: Judges CYNTHIA A. FRY, Pro Tempore, and J. MILES HANISEE concurred with the decision and reasoning provided by Judge ATTREP (para 25).