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 Petitioner sought child support from the Respondent, who could not be located for personal service. The Petitioner attempted service by publication, which was approved by the district court. The Respondent did not respond to the notice, and the Petitioner argued that the court had jurisdiction to decide the child support claim based on the approved service by publication.

Procedural History

• District Court, Chaves County: The district court denied the Petitioner’s claim for child support, ruling that service by publication was improper and that it lacked in personam jurisdiction over the Respondent to order child support.

Parties' Submissions

• Petitioner-Appellant: Argued that the district court erred in ruling it lacked jurisdiction, as service by publication was approved and complied with Rule 1-004(J) NMRA. The Petitioner contended that the same method of service was sufficient for the divorce decree and should also apply to the child support claim.
• Respondent-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Did the district court err in ruling that it lacked jurisdiction over the Respondent to decide the Petitioner’s claim for child support due to improper service by publication?

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s order, holding that the district court had jurisdiction over the child support claim.

Reasons

Per Cynthia A. Fry, Chief Judge (Bustamante and Vanzi JJ. concurring):

The Court of Appeals found that the Petitioner complied with Rule 1-004(J) NMRA, which allows service by publication when personal service is not feasible, and the method of publication is reasonably calculated to notify the Respondent of the action. The district court had approved the service by publication, finding that the Petitioner made diligent efforts to locate the Respondent and that the publication was likely to provide notice.

The Court reasoned that the same method of service was deemed sufficient to grant the divorce and should also apply to the child support claim, as both were part of the same complaint. There was no logical basis to differentiate the sufficiency of service for the divorce and the child support claim. The Court concluded that the district court had jurisdiction over all claims in the complaint, including child support. If the Respondent wished to challenge the judgment, he could seek relief under Rule 1-060 NMRA.