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, married in 1991 and separated in 2006, were involved in a divorce proceeding concerning the characterization and division of assets and debts, including a business started during the marriage, AJAC Enterprises, Inc. (AJAC), and the parties' Albuquerque residence (the Corona home), among other issues. The district court had to determine whether these assets were community or separate property, address claims for interim support, and consider the treatment of gambling losses and debts allegedly owed by AJAC to a company owned by Wife's father.

Procedural History

• District Court of Bernalillo County: The court characterized assets and debts as separate or community property, divided marital assets and debts, and addressed claims for interim support and gambling losses. It concluded that AJAC was community property, certain debts were Wife's separate debts, Wife was not entitled to interim support or reimbursement for gambling losses, and the Corona home was divisible marital property.

Parties' Submissions

• Petitioner/Counterrespondent-Appellant (Wife): Argued that AJAC is her separate property, contested the characterization of certain debts as her separate debts, claimed entitlement to interim support and reimbursement for gambling losses, and disputed the treatment of the Corona home as community property.
• Respondent/Counterpetitioner-Appellee (Husband): Supported the district court's findings and conclusions, including the characterization of AJAC as community property, the treatment of debts, the denial of interim support and reimbursement for gambling losses, and the division of the Corona home as marital property.

Legal Issues

• Whether AJAC Enterprises, Inc. is community property or the separate property of Wife.
• Whether certain debts are Wife's separate debts or community debts.
• Whether Wife is entitled to interim support.
• Whether Wife is entitled to reimbursement for gambling losses incurred by Husband and paid with community funds.
• Whether the Corona home is an asset of a revocable trust and therefore divisible marital property.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's findings and conclusions on all issues except for the treatment of the Corona home as community property, which was reversed. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

Reasons

• Per Yohalem, J. (Hanisee, C.J., and Medina, J., concurring):
  The Court found substantial evidence supporting the district court's determination that AJAC was community property, not Wife's separate property, based on the presumption that property acquired during marriage is community property and Wife's failure to rebut this presumption (paras 10-13, 15-17).
  The Court agreed with the district court's findings that certain debts claimed by Wife were not proven to be legitimate debts of AJAC and were therefore characterized as Wife's separate debts (paras 19-23).
  The Court found no abuse of discretion in the district court's denial of interim support to Wife, given the lack of credible evidence supporting her claims for such support (paras 24-26).
  The Court upheld the district court's conclusion that Wife failed to demonstrate entitlement to reimbursement for Husband's gambling losses, as there was no evidence of a breach of fiduciary duty or lack of consent by Wife (paras 27-31).
  The Court reversed the district court's finding that the Corona home was held in a revocable trust and characterized as community property, determining instead that the home was held in an irrevocable trust for the benefit of the parties' son and was not marital property (paras 32-44).