Chavez v. Chavez, 36,003

Renell Chavez (petitioner) and Carl J. Chavez (respondent) divorce; district court awarded spousal support to Renell of $1,100/month and retained jurisdiction to modify.
Respondent appealed, arguing (1) Petitioner was not entitled to spousal support, (2) the amount was excessive, and (3) the award improperly required lifetime payments or was otherwise infirm.
A special master issued recommendations; the district court adopted the special master’s report over respondent’s objections without taking additional evidence.
Respondent contended he could not cite facts supporting the award on appeal because the district court did not hold an evidentiary hearing (alleged due process problem).
The Court of Appeals issued a proposed disposition to affirm; respondent filed a memorandum in opposition and attached extra-record exhibits (improper).
The Court of Appeals reviewed whether the district court abused its discretion by (a) failing to consider statutory spousal-support factors, (b) adopting the special master’s recommendation without taking more evidence, and (c) awarding modifiable, indefinite support.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Renell)	Defendant's Argument (Carl)	Held
Whether Petitioner was entitled to spousal support	Petitioner relied on special master’s findings and evidence supporting need	Carl argued Renell was self-sufficient, could earn up to ~$62,000, younger and healthy, so no support warranted	Court affirmed; district court did not abuse discretion in awarding support
Whether district court violated due process by adopting special master without evidentiary hearing	Renell relied on record review and special master process	Carl argued lack of evidentiary hearing prevented him from developing record and supporting his appeal	Court held Rule 1-053.2(H)(1)(b) permits review of the record and district court’s choice not to take more evidence was within discretion; no due process violation
Whether award amount/duration was improper or unmodifiable	Renell argued the award and retained jurisdiction were appropriate	Carl argued amount excessive and that lack of calculational findings prevents future modification	Court held amount not shown to be an abuse of discretion and retained jurisdiction to modify makes the indefinite award permissible

Weaver v. Weaver, 100 N.M. 165, 667 P.2d 970 (1983) (lists statutory factors court must consider in spousal support determinations)
Jemko, Inc. v. Liaghat, 106 N.M. 50, 738 P.2d 922 (1987) (prohibits attaching documents not in the appellate record)
Thornton v. Gamble, 101 N.M. 764, 688 P.2d 1268 (1984) (docketing statement must state material facts supporting issues on appeal)
Buffington v. McGorty, 136 N.M. 226, 96 P.3d 787 (2004) (nature of district court hearing on objections to a hearing officer depends on the objections)
Headley v. Morgan Mgmt. Corp., 137 N.M. 339, 110 P.3d 1076 (2005) (court may decline cursory arguments lacking explanation or supporting facts)