Hamood v. Malik
35,998
| N.M. Ct. App. | Jun 15, 2017Background
- Husband (Hamood Malik), self-represented, appealed multiple post-decree orders in a family law case involving Wife (Sara Hamood) and their child.
- HSD (Human Services Department, Child Support Enforcement Division) moved to intervene; the district court granted the motion on Sept. 30, 2016.
- The district court entered a Sept. 23, 2015 order adopting a stipulated post-decree settlement requiring Husband to pay $10,000 (or $20,000 plus costs if late) in attorney fees to Wife’s former counsel and to provide Wife a reliable car (up to $5,000) and maintenance for 60 days.
- A subsequent Oct. 17, 2016 judgment awarded the Sutin Firm $20,000 plus costs based on Husband’s failure to timely pay; an Nov. 21, 2016 order required Husband to give Wife a car or pay $5,000.
- Husband raised numerous challenges on appeal (intervention, attorney fees, car, custody, child support, property division, spousal support, judicial bias), alleging fraud, forgery, bribery, and that some orders were inconsistent with prior agreements.
- The Court of Appeals reviewed the record proper, rejected factual allegations not in the record, found several issues nonfinal and thus dismissed them, and affirmed the intervenor order, fee judgment, and car award.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Wife/HSD) | Defendant's Argument (Malik) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| HSD permissive intervention | HSD had statutory authority and moved to intervene after Wife applied for services | Malik contends HSD misrepresented his consent and bypassed a hearing; asks to stop intervention | Intervention affirmed — court found no error in allowing HSD to intervene under Rule 1-024(B)(1) and statute |
| Attorney fees judgment ($20,000 + costs) | Fees awarded pursuant to stipulated settlement and prior interim fee order; judgment for $20,000 valid after nonpayment | Malik claims settlement was fraudulent, signature forged, judge bribed, attorney committed fraud | Judgment affirmed — signed, notarized stipulated settlement in record supports judgment; new allegations outside record not considered |
| Car award (car or $5,000) | Provision in stipulated settlement requiring Husband to provide a reliable car up to $5,000 | Malik disputes the settlement as fraudulent and inconsistent with earlier terms | Award affirmed — court relied on the signed, notarized settlement in the record |
| Custody, child support, property division, spousal support | Orders resolving these issues were interlocutory/nonfinal per district proceedings | Malik argues errors in custody, support, property division, spousal support and alleges judicial bias | Appeal dismissed as to these issues for lack of finality; these claims deemed abandoned where not adequately responded to on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Kelly Inn No. 102, Inc. v. Kapnison, 824 P.2d 1033 (N.M. 1992) (finality rule: judgment final only when all issues resolved)
- In re Aaron L., 996 P.2d 431 (N.M. Ct. App. 2000) (appellate court will not consider matters not in record)
- Jemko, Inc. v. Liaghat, 738 P.2d 922 (N.M. Ct. App. 1987) (improper to attach documents not in record on appeal)
- Durham v. Guest, 204 P.3d 19 (N.M. 2009) (appellate courts refuse to consider new factual assertions not presented to trial court)
- United Nuclear Corp. v. Gen. Atomic Co., 629 P.2d 231 (N.M. 1980) (adverse rulings or criticism do not alone establish judicial bias)
- State v. Fernandez, 875 P.2d 1104 (N.M. Ct. App. 1994) (consistent rulings against a party do not, by themselves, show bias)