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 involves a divorce between the parties, who were married in 1975. During the marriage, they acquired various properties and debts. The wife sold her house and business to support their initial move to New Mexico, where the husband began his legal career. The trial court found that the community property was valuable but not liquid, and awarded the husband the bulk of the property, requiring him to pay the wife $155,809 to equalize the division. The husband failed to make the required payments and transferred properties to third parties, leading to multiple contempt proceedings.

Procedural History

• District Court, February 1, 1991: Issued a final decree of divorce, dividing property and awarding the wife $155,809 to equalize the division. The decree also included $1 per year in alimony contingent on the husband's timely payments.
• District Court, March 1991: Found the husband in contempt for failing to make payments and attend a hearing, ordering him to pay fines and attorney fees.
• District Court, May 1991: Found the husband in further contempt for non-compliance, imposing additional fines and ordering the transfer of property to the wife in lieu of payments.
• District Court, December 1991: Found the husband in contempt again for failing to pay fines and fees, ordering his incarceration until payment was made.

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Husband): Argued that the $1 per year alimony was an improper attempt to preserve jurisdiction, that the trial court improperly used contempt powers to enforce property division, and that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to modify the decree during the appeal.
• Respondent (Wife): Did not respond to the husband's argument that her acceptance of judgment benefits precluded her cross-appeal. She argued for enforcement of the decree and sought attorney fees for appellate proceedings.

Legal Issues

• Was the award of $1 per year in alimony proper?
• Could the trial court enforce the property division through contempt powers?
• Did the trial court have jurisdiction to modify the final decree during the pendency of the appeal?
• Did the wife's acceptance of judgment benefits preclude her cross-appeal?

Disposition

• The award of $1 per year in alimony was upheld.
• The trial court's use of contempt powers to enforce the property division was affirmed.
• The trial court's modification of the final decree during the appeal was reversed.
• The wife's cross-appeal was dismissed due to her acceptance of judgment benefits.
• The wife was awarded $3,000 in attorney fees for appellate proceedings.

Reasons

Per Pickard J. (Donnelly and Black JJ. concurring):

• Alimony of $1 per year: The court found that the wife had a present need for support, and the $1 per year alimony was tied to the husband's compliance with property division payments. This was not an abuse of discretion and was consistent with the trial court's findings.
• Contempt powers: The trial court's use of contempt powers was justified because the property division payments were intended to support the wife. The husband's actions, including transferring property to third parties and failing to comply with court orders, warranted the imposition of fines and other measures to enforce compliance.
• Modification of the decree: The trial court lacked jurisdiction to modify the decree during the appeal. While enforcement of the decree was permissible, the order requiring the transfer of property to the wife constituted a material modification and was therefore reversed.
• Cross-appeal: The wife's acceptance of judgment benefits precluded her from pursuing a cross-appeal. The court declined to address her issues due to her failure to respond to the husband's argument on this point.
• Attorney fees: The wife was awarded $3,000 in attorney fees for her success in defending against the husband's appeal and her demonstrated need for assistance in post-decree proceedings.