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 1991, with the original decree issued by the Second Judicial District Court. The couple has two minor children. Following the divorce, the Petitioner-Appellee moved with the children to Grant County, while the Respondent-Appellant remained in Bernalillo County. In 1995, the Second District Court issued a stipulated order regarding visitation. In 1997, the Petitioner-Appellee filed a petition in the Sixth Judicial District Court to modify visitation (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• Second Judicial District Court, 1991: Issued the original divorce decree (para 2).
• Second Judicial District Court, 1995: Entered a stipulated order concerning visitation (para 2).
• Sixth Judicial District Court, 1997: Denied the Respondent-Appellant's motion to dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction (para 4).

Parties' Submissions

• Respondent-Appellant: Argued that the Sixth Judicial District Court lacked jurisdiction and that the proper venue for the modification of visitation was the Second Judicial District Court, which issued the original decree (paras 3-4, 6).
• Petitioner-Appellee: Contended that the Sixth Judicial District Court had jurisdiction and that it was a more convenient forum since she and the children resided in Grant County (paras 4, 11).

Legal Issues

• Does the district court that issued the original divorce decree retain exclusive jurisdiction over subsequent motions to modify visitation when the parties reside in different counties within the state?
• Is venue determinative in deciding which district court should hear the matter?

Disposition

• The Supreme Court of New Mexico reversed the Sixth Judicial District Court's decision and held that the Second Judicial District Court is the proper venue for the matter (para 14).

Reasons

Per Serna J. (Franchini C.J., Baca J., and Minzner J. concurring):

• The Court distinguished between jurisdiction and venue, noting that while district courts in New Mexico have concurrent jurisdiction over child custody matters, venue is the determinative factor in this case (para 6).
• The Court held that the district court which rendered the original decree retains proper venue for subsequent modifications, as it is most familiar with the case and the ongoing custody issues (paras 6-8).
• The Sixth Judicial District Court's reliance on Ortiz v. Gonzales was misplaced, as that case dealt with property disputes rather than ongoing custody matters (para 8).
• The Court rejected the argument that the Respondent-Appellant waived venue, as he timely raised the issue in his answer (para 10).
• While acknowledging the inconvenience to the Petitioner-Appellee, the Court emphasized that any change of venue must comply with statutory requirements, which were not met in this case (paras 11-12).
• The Court noted that legislative action may be necessary to address the anomaly of intrastate venue issues in child custody cases (para 13).