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

• In a divorce case, the Father contested the district court's adoption of a hearing officer’s recommendations regarding his self-employment income and the inclusion of child care costs in child support calculations. Additionally, the Father raised issues about the marital settlement agreement (MSA), specifically concerning the division of community debt and the requirement for the Mother to sell the home to pay off said debt.

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Bernalillo County, Elizabeth E. Whitefield, District Judge

Parties' Submissions

• Father: Argued that his income tax return was credible proof of his self-employment income and contested the inclusion of $40 per month child care costs in the child support calculations. He also claimed financial hardship and contended that the Mother failed to comply with the MSA by not removing his name from all community debt. He requested the court to order the sale of the home to pay the community debt.
• Mother: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court abused its discretion in rejecting some of the Father's evidence regarding his self-employment income and in including child care costs in the child support calculations.
• Whether the district court erred in its interpretation and enforcement of the MSA, specifically regarding the division of community debt and the requirement to sell the home.

Disposition

• The decision of the district court was affirmed.

Reasons

• Per Roderick T. Kennedy, J. (Jonathan B. Sutin, J., Timothy L. Garcia, J., concurring):
  The court found that the Father did not provide sufficient documentation to support his profit and loss statement for his self-employment income, leading to the rejection of some of his claims regarding expenses used to produce income. The Father's argument that the inclusion of child care costs was unjustified was not preserved for appeal because he failed to provide a sufficient explanation or evidence to support his request for their exclusion. Regarding the MSA, the Father's attempt to modify its terms by adding language requiring the Mother to refinance or sell the home was considered a new argument not previously presented to the district court. The court held that it could interpret the agreement but could not alter the contract between the parties as requested by the Father. The appellate court affirmed the district court's decision, finding no abuse of discretion in its rulings on the evidence presented and the interpretation of the MSA.