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 dissolution of marriage between the Petitioner and the Respondent, who were married for fewer than seven months. They had no children, debts, or significant assets. The Respondent claims to suffer from various disabilities, including aphasia, and argues that the district court failed to provide reasonable accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) during the proceedings (paras 5-6).
Procedural History
- District Court, April 26, 2024: The district court entered a final order regarding property and debts in the dissolution of marriage case (para 5).
Parties' Submissions
- Respondent: Argued that the district court failed to provide reasonable accommodations under the ADA, including the need for a qualified reader and other specific accommodations. The Respondent also claimed that the district court improperly handled the pretrial conference and failed to appoint guardians ad litem for both parties (paras 6-11).
- Petitioner: [Not applicable or not found]
Legal Issues
- Whether the district court failed to provide reasonable accommodations under the ADA.
- Whether the district court erred in not appointing guardians ad litem for the parties.
- Whether the district court erred in its handling of the pretrial conference and other procedural matters.
Disposition
- The New Mexico Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision (para 1).
Reasons
Per Hanisee J. (Bogardus and Henderson JJ. concurring):
The court found that the district court provided sufficient accommodations under the ADA, including providing information ahead of time, allowing extra time during hearings, and providing a sign language interpreter. The court disagreed with the Respondent's assertion that additional accommodations, such as a qualified reader, were necessary. The court also found no error in the district court's handling of the pretrial conference or in its decision not to appoint guardians ad litem, as these were not required under the ADA. The court noted that the Respondent was able to effectively communicate and participate in the proceedings, as evidenced by the extensive filings and motions submitted (paras 7-13).