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 child support calculations and attorney fees between the Mother (Respondent-Appellant) and Father (Petitioner-Appellee). The Mother argued that the Father’s income should include shareholder distributions, bonuses, retained earnings, and other deposits from his Subchapter S corporation. She also claimed that the Father’s use of a company vehicle should be considered as income. The Father contended that these amounts were not income but were used for business purposes, including tax payments, life insurance premiums, and maintaining corporate stability.

Procedural History

• District Court, Bernalillo County: The district court issued an order on child support and attorney fees, finding in favor of the Father. The court excluded certain amounts from the Father’s income and ordered each party to bear their own attorney fees and costs.

Parties' Submissions

• Mother (Respondent-Appellant): Argued that the district court erred in calculating the Father’s income by excluding shareholder distributions, bonuses, retained earnings, and other deposits. She also claimed that the Father’s use of a company vehicle should be imputed as income. Additionally, she argued that the district court abused its discretion by not awarding her attorney fees, citing income disparity and her inability to pay.
• Father (Petitioner-Appellee): Asserted that the excluded amounts were not income but were used for legitimate business purposes, such as tax payments, life insurance premiums, and maintaining corporate stability. He also argued that the company vehicle was not used for personal purposes and that the district court’s decision on attorney fees was appropriate.

Legal Issues

• Did the district court err in excluding certain amounts from the Father’s income for child support calculations?
• Should the Father’s use of a company vehicle be imputed as income?
• Did the district court abuse its discretion in ordering each party to bear their own attorney fees and costs?

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s decisions on all issues.

Reasons

Per Cynthia A. Fry, Chief Judge (Michael E. Vigil and Timothy L. Garcia, JJ., concurring):

The Court found that the district court’s decisions were supported by substantial evidence and complied with New Mexico law. Testimony presented at trial demonstrated that the amounts excluded from the Father’s income were used for legitimate business purposes, such as tax payments, life insurance premiums, and maintaining corporate stability. The Court deferred to the district court’s discretion in assessing the credibility of this testimony.

The Court rejected the Mother’s argument regarding the company vehicle, noting that testimony supported the finding that the vehicle was not used for personal purposes. The Court also denied the Mother’s motion to amend her docketing statement to include this argument, as it was not viable.

Regarding attorney fees, the Court held that the district court properly considered the factors under Rule 1-127 NMRA and did not abuse its discretion. The record showed that both parties filed numerous motions, and the Mother was found in contempt of court. The Court found no error in the district court’s decision to order each party to bear their own attorney fees and costs.

The Court concluded that the Mother’s arguments were unpersuasive and affirmed the district court’s decisions on all issues.