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 father who sought to reduce his child support obligations. The father, representing himself, failed to comply with procedural requirements during the appeal process, including filing a required brief-in-chief after the case was assigned to the general calendar (paras 1, 8-9).

Procedural History

• District Court, Santa Fe County: The father filed a motion to reduce child support, which was denied.

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Father): Argued that the Court of Appeals had sufficient information from the summary calendar to decide the case without requiring a brief-in-chief. He claimed the assignment to the general calendar was arbitrary and violated his right to appeal (paras 2, 7).
• Appellee (Mother): [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the appellant was entitled to have his appeal decided on the summary calendar without filing a brief-in-chief.
• Whether the assignment of the case to the general calendar violated the appellant's procedural rights.

Disposition

• The appeal was dismissed for failure to file a brief-in-chief (para 10).

Reasons

Per Alarid J. (Hartz CJ and Bustamante J. concurring):

• The Court explained that its calendaring process is designed to efficiently manage cases by assigning those with clear dispositions to the summary calendar and more complex cases to the general calendar. The assignment to the general calendar was appropriate because the case required further briefing and examination of the record (paras 3-6).
• The appellant's argument that the assignment to the general calendar was arbitrary and violated his rights was rejected. The Court clarified that the assignment process is governed by procedural rules and does not infringe on the right to appeal (para 7).
• The appellant's failure to file a brief-in-chief after the case was assigned to the general calendar left the Court unable to consider his arguments. The Court emphasized that self-represented litigants are held to the same procedural standards as lawyers (paras 8-9).
• Consequently, the appeal was dismissed due to non-compliance with procedural requirements (para 10).