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 the Respondent filing objections to a report issued by a hearing officer, which contained recommendations following a hearing. The district court entered an order indicating no objections had been filed and adopted the hearing officer's report, despite the objections being filed roughly an hour later. The Respondent then filed a timely motion for reconsideration, which the district court denied based on the determination that the objections were not filed in a timely manner (para 2).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Petitioner-Appellee: Argued that the Respondent's objections were not filed in a timely manner and suggested that the Respondent's litigation conduct was aimed at delay and obstruction (paras 4, 6).
• Respondent-Appellant: Contended that their objections were timely filed and requested that the district court consider the objections on their merits (para 2).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in determining that the Respondent's objections were not filed in a timely manner.
• Whether the district court was required to consider the Respondent's objections.

Disposition

• The decision of the district court was reversed and the case was remanded for further proceedings (para 7).

Reasons

• The panel, consisting of Judges Megan P. Duffy, Jacqueline R. Medina, and Katherine A. Wray, unanimously found that the district court erred in its determination regarding the timeliness of the Respondent's objections. The appellate court applied Rule 1-053.2(F) NMRA in conjunction with Rule 1-006(C) NMRA, which added three days to the period for filing objections, thereby rendering the Respondent's objections timely (para 3). The court disagreed with the district court's analogy of filing objections to filing an appeal and found that Rule 1-006(C) was applicable in this context, as no rule expressly superseded its application for computing time periods specified in the Rules of Civil Procedure (para 4). Furthermore, the appellate court held that the district court was required to consider the Respondent's objections once filed timely, referencing precedents that underscored the necessity for district courts to review and consider recommendations from domestic relations hearing officers and associated objections (para 5). The appellate court dismissed the Petitioner's contention that the Respondent's litigation conduct was merely for delay and obstruction, stating that such a premise could not be entertained at the appellate level without prior findings by the district court (para 6).