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, a husband and wife, were married in 1986 and divorced in 2004. Their marital settlement agreement (MSA), incorporated into the final divorce decree, provided for transitional spousal support payments from the husband to the wife, designated as nonmodifiable for five years. The MSA did not address the effect of the wife’s remarriage on spousal support. The wife remarried in 2005, prompting the husband to seek termination of the spousal support payments (paras 2-4).

Procedural History

• District Court, August 2006: The court held that spousal support may terminate upon remarriage unless the recipient demonstrates exceptional circumstances. It found no such circumstances and terminated the wife’s spousal support (paras 4-5).

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Wife): Argued that the statutory amendments to NMSA 1978, Section 40-4-7(B), allowing spousal support to be designated as nonmodifiable, override the common law presumption that remarriage terminates spousal support (paras 6, 9).
• Appellee (Husband): Contended that remarriage creates a presumption of termination of spousal support under New Mexico case law, specifically Kuert v. Kuert, unless exceptional circumstances are shown. He argued that the MSA’s nonmodifiability clause did not waive this presumption (paras 6, 20, 23).

Legal Issues

• Does the statutory provision allowing spousal support to be designated as nonmodifiable override the common law presumption that remarriage terminates spousal support?

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s decision to terminate spousal support and remanded the matter for further proceedings (para 24).

Reasons

Per Bustamante J. (Sutin and Vigil JJ. concurring):

• The court analyzed the statutory amendments to NMSA 1978, Section 40-4-7(B), which introduced new categories of spousal support, including transitional support, and allowed such support to be designated as nonmodifiable (paras 8-11).
• The court held that the statutory provision for nonmodifiable spousal support under Section 40-4-7(B)(2)(b) overrides the common law presumption established in Kuert v. Kuert that remarriage terminates spousal support unless exceptional circumstances are shown (paras 12, 16).
• The court emphasized that the legislative intent behind the 1993 amendments was to provide stability and finality to spousal support agreements, including the ability to limit future modifications (paras 13-14).
• The court rejected the husband’s argument that the MSA’s silence on remarriage implied the continued application of the common law presumption, noting that the statutory standard of nonmodifiability controls unless explicitly limited by the parties (para 23).
• The court distinguished or dismissed out-of-state authorities cited by the husband, finding them inapplicable or supportive of the wife’s position (paras 21-22).
• The court concluded that the district court erred in terminating the wife’s spousal support based on remarriage and remanded the case for proceedings consistent with its opinion (paras 24-25).