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 dispute between the Petitioner and the Respondent regarding child support obligations. The Petitioner sought to challenge a district court order addressing child support. The events leading to the dispute are not detailed in the decision.
Procedural History
- District Court, April 20, 2010: Issued an order addressing child support.
Parties' Submissions
- Petitioner-Appellant: Argued that the district court had ruled on his motion to reconsider the child support order, citing a telephone call from the court on May 18, 2010, as evidence of the ruling. However, he did not provide a written order to support this claim.
- Respondent-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]
Legal Issues
- Whether the appeal was premature due to the absence of a written order disposing of the Petitioner’s motion to reconsider.
Disposition
- The appeal was dismissed as premature.
Reasons
Per Castillo J. (Sutin and Kennedy JJ. concurring):
The Court held that the appeal was premature because the Petitioner’s motion to reconsider the child support order had not been resolved by a written order. The Court emphasized that under New Mexico law, a party may only appeal from a written order, and oral rulings or telephone communications do not constitute final orders. The Court also noted that it is the appellant’s duty to provide an adequate record for review, and the absence of a written order in the record rendered the appeal procedurally defective. The Petitioner was advised to request the district court to enter a written order and file a separate appeal if necessary.