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 two former spouses regarding the calculation of child support for their four children. The child support was initially determined based on a worksheet from the precedent Erickson v. Erickson, 1999-NMCA-056. The petitioner sought relief from the judgment, arguing that the calculation method in Erickson contained a clerical error, which rendered the agreement inequitable.
Procedural History
- District Court, February 15, 2008: The parties stipulated to a Decree of Dissolution of Marriage and Marital Settlement Agreement, which included child support calculations based on Erickson.
- District Court, April 14, 2008: The petitioner filed a motion to modify child support due to changes in income and a Rule 1-060 motion for relief from judgment, alleging a clerical error in Erickson. The court granted the motion to modify child support but denied the Rule 1-060 motion.
Parties' Submissions
- Appellant (Petitioner): Argued that the child support agreement should be set aside because the calculation method in Erickson contained a clerical error. Specifically, the appellant claimed that line nine of the worksheet was improperly calculated by multiplying line two by line seven, instead of line five by line seven. Relief was sought under Rule 1-060(A), (B)(5), and (B)(6).
- Appellee (Respondent): Contended that the district court correctly denied the Rule 1-060 motion, as the alleged error in Erickson was not a clerical mistake within the meaning of Rule 1-060(A) and could not be addressed by the district court, which was bound by precedent.
Legal Issues
- Did the district court abuse its discretion in denying the petitioner’s Rule 1-060 motion for relief from judgment?
- Can an alleged clerical error in binding legal precedent be remedied under Rule 1-060(A)?
- Was the petitioner entitled to relief under Rule 1-060(B)(5) or (B)(6) based on the alleged inequity of the judgment?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s decision to deny the petitioner’s Rule 1-060 motion for relief from judgment.
Reasons
Per Bustamante J. (Fry CJ and Sutin J. concurring):
The court found no abuse of discretion in the district court’s denial of the Rule 1-060 motion. The petitioner’s claim of a clerical error in Erickson did not fall within the scope of Rule 1-060(A), as the rule applies to clerical mistakes by the presiding court, not errors in binding legal precedent. The district court lacked authority to deviate from Erickson, as lower courts are bound by precedent regardless of its correctness.
The petitioner’s reliance on Rule 1-060(B)(5) and (B)(6) was also rejected. Relief under these provisions requires extraordinary circumstances, which were not present here. The petitioner’s argument was essentially an untimely appeal of the original judgment, as the alleged error in Erickson should have been raised before the entry of judgment or through a proper appeal.
The court emphasized that Rule 1-060 cannot be used to preserve issues not raised during the original proceedings or to circumvent the appellate process. Accordingly, the district court’s decision was affirmed.