{1} This case raises the issue of whether NMSA 1978, Section 4(M-20(B) (1993) prohibits a district court from exercising its discretion in determining whether to grant a petitioner’s motion to voluntarily dismiss a legal separation action pursuant to Rule 1-041(A)(2) NMRA following the death of a party to the action. Section 40-4-20(B) mandates that if a party to a pending legal separation action dies prior to entry of a final decree, the district court “shall conclude” certain proceedings associated with the action “as if both parties had survived.” Rule 1-041(A)(2) allows the district court to exercise its discretion in determining whether to grant a petitioner’s motion to voluntarily dismiss an action. We determine that a district court may grant a motion for a voluntary dismissal in a legal separation action and conclude the proceedings consistent with Section 40-4-20(B). As a result, we reverse the district court’s denial of Shelley Trinosky’s (Wife’s) motion to voluntarily dismiss
BACKGROUND
{2} Wife filed a petition for a legal separation, division of property, spousal support, and reasonable costs and attorney fees on July 16, 2002. Donald L. Trinosky (Husband) subsequently filed a response to Wife’s petition and requested discovery, but Husband did not raise any counter-claims. On April 3, 2003, while the legal separation action was pending and prior to entry of a final decree, Husband died.
{3} Husband executed a Last Will and Testament prior to his death, and a separate probate action is pending that is not the subject of this appeal. On or about June 13, 2003, Husband’s son, Kim S. Trinosky (Son), was originally appointed as the personal representative of Husband’s estate. Peter H. Johnstone (Appellee) subsequently replaced Son as the personal representative of Husband’s estate.
{4} On July 19, 2004, Wife filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss the legal separation action pursuant to Rule 1-041(A)(2). Wife alleged that prior to Husband’s death, the parties held themselves out as husband and wife, Wife provided care to Husband until his death, and that they anticipated a reconciliation. Wife further argued that dismissal of the action would be just and proper, would serve the interests of judicial economy, and would save the parties substantial litigation costs. Additionally, Wife contended that since Husband had asserted no counterclaims, continuation of the legal separation action would serve no purpose but to deplete the assets of Husband’s estate. In response, Son denied the majority of Wife’s factual allegations and argued that “dismissing the action ... would be contrary to the laws of the State of New Mexico which require the current proceeding ... to be concluded as if [Husband] survived.”
{5} At a hearing on September 23, 2004, Wife argued that she filed the petition for legal separation upon the advice of counsel as a result of other family tensions in order to preserve her interest in the marital estate. However, Wife testified that the parties never intended to “divorce,” the parties considered themselves husband and wife throughout the entire marriage until Husband’s death, and she did not wish to proceed with the legal separation action. Wife further argued that the district court had discretion to dismiss the action under Rule 1-041(A)(2) and that dismissal would not prejudice Husband, Wife contended that she was not asking the district court to abate the proceedings in violation of Section 40-4-20(B), but that as part of the continuing litigation, Wife was moving to voluntarily dismiss the petition as if Husband were still alive.
{6} In response, Son argued that Section 40-4-20(B) mandated the conclusion of the proceedings and that the district court had no discretion to grant dismissal of the action under Rule 1-041(A)(2). Son also disputed Wife’s allegation that the parties intended to reconcile.
{7} Although the district court briefly questioned the parties regarding whether dismissal would prejudice Husband, the district court ultimately denied the motion to dismiss on grounds that Section 40-4-20(B) controlled and mandated continuation of the proceedings.
{8} At a subsequent hearing, the district court considered whether to grant an interlocutory appeal regarding the potential conflict between Section 40-4-20(B) and Rule 1-041(A)(2). Ultimately, the district court issued a memorandum order explaining its denial of Wife’s motion to dismiss and determining that the proceedings would continue to trial. The district court recognized that the use of the term “shall” in Section 40-4-20(B) conveyed an express duty on the district court and ultimately concluded that the court “must proceed pursuant to ... Section 40-4-20(B) to finalize the division of the community property pursuant to the requested legal separation.”
{9} Following a trial on the merits, the district court ultimately entered a decree granting a legal separation, awarding spousal support, dividing community property, and
DISCUSSION
{10} Wife argues that the district court abused its discretion in denying her motion to voluntarily dismiss this action pursuant to Rule 1 — 041(A)(2). Specifically, Wife contends that the court erred by interpreting Section 40-4-20(B) to “override” Rule 1-041(A)(2) and mandate the continuance of the proceedings. Wife further contends that the district court failed to determine whether dismissal of the action would adversely affect the rights of the opposing party pursuant to Rule 1-041(A)(2), and that absent such a determination, the district court abused its discretion by denying the motion to dismiss.
Statutory Interpretation of Section 40-4-20(B)
{11} We first determine whether Section 40^4-20(B) precludes voluntary dismissal under Rule 1-041(A)(2) as a means of concluding the proceedings associated with a legal separation action after the death of one of the parties. “The meaning of language used in a statute is a question of law that we review de novo.” United Rentals Nw., Inc. v. Yearout Mech., Inc.,
{12} Section 40-4-20(B) provides in pertinent part that, upon the filing and service of a petition for separation, division of property or debt, or spousal support,
if a party to the action dies during the pendency of the action, but prior to the entry of a decree granting ... separation, ... the proceedings for the determination, division and distribution of marital property rights and debts, distribution of spousal or child support or determination of paternity shall not abate. The court shall conclude the proceedings as if both parties had survived.
{13} “By enacting Section 4(M-20(B), the Legislature departed from the common law rule that a pending divorce action abates when a party to the action dies before the entry of a final divorce decree.” Oldham v. Oldham,
{14} Section 40-4-20(B) departs from the common law rule of abatement by expressly providing that “if a party to [a divorce or separation] action dies during the pendency
{15} We interpret Section 40-4-20(B) to prohibit the abatement of the specific types of proceedings listed in Subsection (B) as a result of the death of one of the parties. In contrast to the common law rule, Section 40-4-20(B) provides that the death of one of the parties to a divorce or separation action does not divest a domestic relations court of jurisdiction over proceedings for the division of marital property, distribution of support, and determination of paternity. See Oldham,
{16} Section 4(M-20(B) further provides that the domestic relations court “shall conclude the proceedings as if both parties had survived.” (Emphasis added.) The use of the word “shall” mandates conclusion of the proceedings for the division of property, distribution of support, and determination of paternity. See Oldham,
{17} If both parties had survived, a conclusion of the proceedings associated with the legal separation action could have been effected through a variety of different means, including but not limited to a judgment following a trial on the merits, a decree incorporating a marital settlement agreement, or a voluntary dismissal of the action. See, e.g., Karpien,
{18} Furthermore, voluntary dismissal under Rule 1-041(A)(2) would have been one permissible means of concluding the proceedings associated with the legal separation action if both parties had survived. Pursuant to Rule 1-041 (A)(2), a district court may in its discretion grant a petitioner’s motion to voluntarily dismiss an action after an answer or other responsive pleading has been filed. See Rule 1-041(A)(2) (providing that after an answer or other responsive pleading has been filed, a district court may on motion of the plaintiff order voluntary dismissal “upon such terms and conditions as the court deems proper”); see also Rule 1-041(F) (stating that Rule 1-041 is applicable to all civil cases filed in district court with several inapplicable exceptions); see also Pacheco v. Cohen,
{19} Section 40-4-20(B) does not limit any of the subsequent means of con-
Denial of Motion for Voluntary Dismissal Under Rule 1-041(A)(2)
{20} We next examine whether the district court abused its discretion in denying Wife’s motion for voluntary dismissal pursuant to Rule 1-041(A)(2). Wife argues that absent sufficient evidence or findings that dismissal would prejudice the opposing party, the district court abused its discretion by denying her motion to dismiss. Wife further contends that the district court abused its discretion by misapprehending Section 40-4-20(B) to mandate continuance of the proceedings and “override” Rule 1-041(A)(2).
{21} Rule 1-041(A)(2) provides that after service of an answer or other responsive pleading by the opposing party, “an action shall not be dismissed on motion of the plaintiff except upon order of the court and upon such terms and conditions as the court deems proper.” If, however, a counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim was filed prior to service of the motion to dismiss, “the action shall not be dismissed against the party’s objection unless the counterclaim, cross-claim or third-party claim can remain pending for independent adjudication by the court.” Id. Because no counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim was filed in this case, the portion of the rule relating to objections of another party is inapplicable.
{22} Initially, we note the limited precedent interpreting Rule 1-041(A)(2). Wife relies on Andrews v. French,
{23} We review the district court’s denial of Wife’s motion to dismiss for an abuse of discretion. See Rule 1-041 (A)(2) (granting the district court discretion to order a dismissal of an action upon motion of the plaintiff “upon such terms and conditions as the court deems proper”); see also County of Santa Fe v. Pub. Serv. Co. of N.M.,
{24} The federal counterpart to Rule 1-041(A)(2) “is designed primarily to prevent voluntary dismissals which unfairly affect the other side, and to permit the imposition of curative conditions.” Brown v. Baeke,
{25} Legal “[prejudice does not arise simply because a second action has been or may be filed against the defendant.” Brown,
{26} Here, it is unclear whether the district court exercised its discretion to determine whether dismissal would prejudice Husband and to consider the equities facing both parties. In response to Wife’s argument that dismissal would not prejudice Husband and that no evidence of prejudice to Husband had been presented, the district court briefly questioned the parties regarding whether dismissal would prejudice Husband. However, Son argued that the district court had no discretion to determine whether to grant Wife’s motion to dismiss because Section 40-4-20(B) mandated continuance of the proceedings. Moreover, neither the district court’s verbal nor written findings and conclusions include any determination regarding whether dismissal would prejudice Husband or how granting or denying dismissal would affect the equities facing both parties. Instead, the district court’s verbal and written findings indicate that the district court ultimately denied the motion to dismiss on grounds that Section 40-4-20(B) controlled and mandated that the court proceed to trial in order to finalize division of the community property.
{27} Based on the record, it appears that the district court misapprehended Section 40-4-20(B) to prohibit the court from exercising any discretion in considering whether to grant Wife’s motion for voluntary dismissal under Rule 1-041(A)(2). As a result, we reverse and remand to the district court to consider the above-listed factors and exercise its discretion in determining whether granting Wife’s motion for voluntary dismissal would prejudice Husband. See Ohlander,
CONCLUSION
{28} For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the district court’s denial of Wife’s motion for voluntary dismissal pursuant to Rule 1-041(A)(2) and remand to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
{29} IT IS SO ORDERED.