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 were divorced in 1983, and the divorce decree specified that any recovery from the wife's potential personal injury claim against Procter & Gamble, directly attributable to past medical expenses, loss of service to the community, or loss of earnings during the marriage, would be community property. The wife later settled her personal injury claim for $200,000, but the settlement did not allocate specific amounts to any type of damages. The husband sought a share of the settlement proceeds, arguing that a portion was attributable to community medical expenses (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• Russell v. Russell, 101 N.M. 648, 687 P.2d 83 (1984): The divorce decree established that any recovery for medical expenses, loss of service, or loss of earnings during the marriage would be community property.
• Russell v. Russell, 106 N.M. 133, 740 P.2d 127 (Ct. App. 1987): The Court of Appeals remanded the case to determine the portion of the wife's settlement directly attributable to medical expenses, holding that such recovery would be community property.

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Husband): Argued that the trial court erred in finding that no portion of the wife's settlement was attributable to medical expenses, asserting that the community had an interest in the settlement proceeds for medical expenses incurred during the marriage. He also contended that the trial court abused its discretion in denying a modification of alimony (paras 1, 6).
• Appellee (Wife): Claimed that neither she nor Procter & Gamble intended any part of the settlement to cover medical expenses and that the settlement agreement did not allocate any amount to such expenses. She also argued that there was no substantial change in circumstances to justify modifying alimony (paras 3, 14).

Legal Issues

• Whether the trial court erred in finding that no portion of the wife's settlement was directly attributable to medical expenses and thus community property.
• Whether the trial court abused its discretion in finding no substantial change in circumstances to justify a modification of alimony.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's finding that no portion of the settlement was attributable to medical expenses.
• The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision denying a modification of alimony (para 19).

Reasons

Per Chavez J. (Donnelly and Minzner JJ. concurring):

• Medical Expenses: The Court held that the trial court erred in relying on testimony about the parties' intentions to determine the allocation of the settlement proceeds. The settlement agreement unambiguously released Procter & Gamble from all claims, including medical expenses, and extrinsic evidence contradicting the agreement was inadmissible. The Court concluded that $80,000 of the settlement was attributable to medical expenses incurred during the marriage, reduced by a proportionate share of attorney fees and costs. The husband was entitled to one-half of this amount, less any offsets for arrearages or equitable safeguards (paras 6-13).

• Modification of Alimony: The Court found no abuse of discretion in the trial court's determination that there was no substantial change in circumstances to justify modifying alimony. The wife's financial situation, including her injuries, inability to obtain health insurance, and remaining settlement funds, supported the trial court's findings. The husband's increased income and military retirement benefits were also considered but did not warrant a modification (paras 14-18).