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 the Petitioner-Appellant (Husband) and the Respondent-Appellee (Wife), who were married in 1998 and separated in 2019. The Husband filed for divorce in January 2020. The couple has three children, with only one being a minor as of March 2020. The Husband sought an interim allocation of income during the divorce proceedings (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• District Court, April 2020: The district court held an evidentiary hearing on the Husband's motion for interim income allocation and issued an order regarding the allocation (para 2).
• District Court, April 2022: The district court entered a bifurcated decree of divorce, granting the divorce but requiring the parties to submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law on contested issues (para 3).

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Husband): Argued that the district court erred by not using Form 4A-212 NMRA, failing to make findings regarding expenses, and that several findings were unsupported by substantial evidence. He also contended that the bifurcated decree caused prejudice due to the delay in the final financial order (paras 5, 17).
• Appellee (Wife): [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in not using Form 4A-212 NMRA and failing to make findings regarding the parties' expenses.
• Whether the district court's findings regarding income and interim allocation were supported by substantial evidence.
• Whether the bifurcated decree of divorce caused prejudice to the Husband due to the delay in the final financial order.

Disposition

• The New Mexico Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decisions (para 1).

Reasons

Per Hanisee J. (Bogardus and Duffy JJ. concurring):

The court found that the district court substantially complied with the requirements of Form 4A-212 NMRA, as the process followed was consistent with the form's mechanics, even if not explicitly used. The court determined that substantial evidence supported the district court's findings regarding the parties' incomes and the interim allocation. The court also noted that the Husband's arguments regarding the bifurcated decree and the delay in the final financial order were not adequately developed or preserved for appeal (paras 6-22).