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 the dissolution of a marriage between the Petitioner and the Respondent. The dispute centers on the division of community property and debts, including the valuation of a property in Oklahoma and the allocation of a credit card debt. The Petitioner and Respondent disagreed on whether the Oklahoma property should be offset by a speculative cost of sale and whether a $3,000 credit card debt should be classified as community debt or the Petitioner’s separate obligation.
Procedural History
- District Court, Bernalillo County: Issued a final judgment dissolving the marriage, dividing the parties’ assets and debts, and awarding spousal support. The court offset the value of the Oklahoma property by a speculative cost of sale and classified the $3,000 credit card debt as community debt.
Parties' Submissions
- Respondent (Appellant): Argued that the district court erred in offsetting the value of the Oklahoma property by an assumed cost of sale without evidence of intent to sell. Also contended that the $3,000 credit card debt should be classified as the Petitioner’s separate obligation, as it was incurred for interim support expenses.
- Petitioner (Appellee): Asserted that the offset for the Oklahoma property was reasonable based on testimony that the property was not intended as a second home and might be sold after their daughter finished college. Argued that the $3,000 credit card debt was community debt, as both parties testified to this at trial.
Legal Issues
- Was the district court’s offset to the value of the Oklahoma property based on a speculative cost of sale justified?
- Did the district court err in classifying the $3,000 credit card debt as community debt rather than the Petitioner’s separate obligation?
Disposition
- The offset to the value of the Oklahoma property was reversed.
- The classification of the $3,000 credit card debt as community debt was affirmed.
Reasons
Per Vigil J. (Robles and Garcia JJ. concurring):
-
Oklahoma Property Offset: The court found that the district court abused its discretion by offsetting the property’s value based on an assumed 8% cost of sale without evidence that the parties intended to sell the property. Testimony that the property was not intended as a second home and might be sold after their daughter finished college was insufficient to justify the offset. The offset was speculative and unsupported by evidence.
-
Credit Card Debt: The court upheld the district court’s classification of the $3,000 credit card debt as community debt. The evidence presented at trial was conflicting, and the district court was entitled to resolve these conflicts. The Respondent failed to demonstrate that the debt was solely attributable to interim support expenses for which the Petitioner was responsible. The court deferred to the district court’s findings, as they were supported by the evidence and not clearly erroneous.
The appellate court concluded that the district court’s decision was partially correct, reversing the offset to the Oklahoma property and affirming the classification of the credit card debt.