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 divorce proceeding between Lydia Alfaro (Mother) and Transito Diaz (Father), both of limited English proficiency, requiring a Spanish-speaking court interpreter. They were married in 2009 and have three children. The Mother filed for dissolution of marriage in September 2018. Despite a mutual order of protection for shared physical custody of the children, Father did not attend mediation. In February 2020, Mother sought to amend custody for primary care, leading to a telephonic hearing in May 2020 where agreements on custody, property division, and child support were made. Father later contested these agreements, leading to further hearings and the district court's affirmation of the agreements (paras 2-4, 9).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Mother: Argued for primary custody with Father having visitation rights, and for the division of property including the marital home, Father’s 401k, and other benefits. She also sought child support obligations to be established (paras 3-4).
• Father: Contested the accuracy of the interpreter's translations during the hearing, argued that his agreement to the division of property and custody was not knowing and voluntary, claimed the agreements were unconscionable, and believed the matter should have gone to trial (para 1).

Legal Issues

• Whether the translations provided by the certified interpreter during the hearing were accurate.
• Whether Father’s agreement to the division of property and custody was knowing and voluntary.
• Whether the agreements were unconscionable because they were unfair and unjust.
• Whether the parties should have gone to trial and if the district court should have ruled on Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision, rejecting Father's arguments regarding the accuracy of translations, the voluntariness of his agreement, the unconscionability of the agreements, and the necessity of a trial or ruling on the motion for summary judgment (para 1).

Reasons

• The Court found Father's arguments regarding inaccurate translations unpreserved due to lack of objection at the time of the hearing. It concluded that Father's agreement was knowing and voluntary, based on the record and the official translation of the conversation during the May 2020 hearing. The Court also determined that Father's arguments about the unconscionability of the agreements were unpreserved, as he did not follow the proper procedural avenues to object to the agreements. Lastly, the Court reasoned that since the parties had agreed in open court on the division of property, child custody, child support, and benefits, the requests for summary judgment and an evidentiary hearing were moot, thus affirming the district court's decisions (paras 12-21).