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 concerns the dissolution of marriage between the Petitioner-Appellee and the Respondent-Appellant. The dispute involves the division of property and allegations by the Respondent-Appellant that she was not given notice of the hearing on the petition for dissolution of marriage.

Procedural History

• District Court, Grant County, presided by Judge Mike Murphy: Granted the petition for dissolution of marriage and divided the property.

Parties' Submissions

• Respondent-Appellant: Argued that she was not given notice of the hearing on the petition for dissolution of marriage and raised other claims that were not specified in the memorandum opinion. She also indicated that she filed a motion to reconsider the order in the district court.
• Petitioner-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the Respondent-Appellant was denied proper notice of the hearing on the petition for dissolution of marriage.
• Whether the Respondent-Appellant’s claims should have been raised in the district court before being brought on appeal.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s order granting the petition for dissolution of marriage and dividing the property.

Reasons

Per Roderick T. Kennedy J. (Wechsler and Robles JJ. concurring):

The Court of Appeals issued a notice of proposed summary disposition, proposing to affirm the district court’s order. The Court explained that the arguments raised by the Respondent-Appellant on appeal, including the claim of lack of notice, should have been raised first in the district court. The Court referred the Respondent-Appellant to Rule 1-060(B) NMRA, which allows parties to seek relief from a judgment on specific grounds such as mistake, inadvertence, excusable neglect, or newly discovered evidence. The Respondent-Appellant’s informal memorandum in opposition to the notice indicated that she had filed a motion to reconsider the order in the district court, which the Court construed as an acceptance of the proposed disposition. Consequently, the Court affirmed the district court’s order.