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 a dispute over the division of military retirement pay following the dissolution of a marriage. The parties had entered into a Marital Settlement Agreement (MSA) that allocated 11.6% of the Respondent's military retirement pay to the Petitioner. The Respondent later argued that this percentage represented the entire community interest in the retirement fund, and the Petitioner was only entitled to half of that amount (5.8%). The Respondent claimed that inconsistencies in the MSA and final judgment led to overpayments to the Petitioner.

Procedural History

• District Court, December 2006: Final judgment entered, incorporating the MSA, which awarded 11.6% of the Respondent's military retirement pay to the Petitioner.
• District Court, January 29, 2009: The Respondent's motion to amend the judgment and clarify the division of military retirement pay was denied on the basis that the court lacked jurisdiction to review the matter on the merits.

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Respondent): Argued that the MSA and final judgment contained inconsistencies, as the Petitioner was awarded 11.6% of the military retirement pay instead of 5.8%, which represents half of the community interest. Claimed overpayments totaling $3,696.25 and asserted that the motion was filed within a reasonable time after discovering the inconsistencies.
• Appellee (Petitioner): Contended that the motion was untimely under Rule 1-059(E) NMRA and did not meet the exceptional circumstances required under Rule 1-060(B)(6) NMRA. Argued that the Respondent failed to establish grounds for relief and that the district court correctly ruled it lacked jurisdiction.

Legal Issues

• Was the Respondent’s motion to amend the judgment and clarify the division of military retirement pay governed by Rule 1-060(B)(6) NMRA?
• Did the district court err in ruling that it lacked jurisdiction to review the motion on the merits?
• Were there inconsistencies in the MSA and final judgment that justified relief under Rule 1-060(B)(6) NMRA?

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's order denying the motion and remanded the case for a hearing on the merits of the Respondent’s motion.

Reasons

Per Kennedy J. (Vigil and Garcia JJ. concurring):

The Court of Appeals found that the Respondent’s motion was properly governed by Rule 1-060(B)(6) NMRA, which allows relief from a final judgment for exceptional circumstances. The Court noted that the Respondent made a prima facie showing of inconsistencies in the MSA and final judgment regarding the percentage of military retirement pay awarded to the Petitioner. The Court also held that the motion was filed within a reasonable time after the alleged inconsistencies were discovered, approximately three years after payments began.

The Court further determined that the district court erred in ruling it lacked jurisdiction to review the motion on the merits before the Petitioner’s response was due. The Court emphasized the need for a hearing to address the circumstances surrounding the discovery of the inconsistencies and to determine whether relief under Rule 1-060(B)(6) NMRA was appropriate.