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 dispute between the parties, focusing on the division of property, child custody, and child support. The Wife did not appear at several court proceedings, leading to the entry of a default divorce decree against her.

Procedural History

• District Court, October 2009: The district court entered a final divorce decree as a default judgment due to the Wife's failure to appear at multiple docket calls and her failure to file a responsive pleading to the divorce petition.

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Wife): Argued that she did not receive proper notice of the default judgment as required under Rule 1-055(B) NMRA and that the default judgment should be set aside.
• Appellee (Husband): Contended that the Wife was given notice of several proceedings, including orders to appear and notices of docket calls, but failed to attend. However, he did not provide evidence that the Wife received notice of the specific docket call that led to the default judgment.

Legal Issues

• Was the Wife entitled to notice of the default judgment under Rule 1-055(B) NMRA?
• Was the entry of the default divorce decree proper in the absence of such notice?

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed the default divorce decree and remanded the case to the district court for trial on the merits or for entry of default judgment after proper notice to the Wife.

Reasons

Per Castillo J. (Bustamante and Garcia JJ. concurring):

The Court found that the default divorce decree constituted a default judgment under Rule 1-055(B) NMRA. The Wife's participation in earlier proceedings before the district court qualified as an "appearance," entitling her to notice of the default judgment. The record did not show, and the Husband did not demonstrate, that the Wife received notice of the October 5, 2009 docket call, which led to the entry of the default judgment. Without such notice, the entry of the default judgment was improper and must be set aside. The Court relied on precedent, including Rodriguez v. Conant, to conclude that failure to provide notice to a party entitled to it is grounds to set aside a default judgment.