Preview:

1 2 3 4 5 6

This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does not include the filing date.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

7 BRYAN E. COLLINS, 8 9 v. 10 CHRISTALANE COLLINS, 11 Respondent-Appellant. Petitioner-Appellee, NO. 30,603

12 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY 13 Angela J. Jewell, District Judge 14 Wolf & Fox P.C. 15 Christen E. Hagemann 16 Albuquerque, NM 17 for Appellee 18 Christalane Collins 19 Albuquerque, NM 20 Pro se Appellant

21

MEMORANDUM OPINION

1 CASTILLO, Judge. 2 Respondent, acting pro se, appeals the district court's modification of spousal

3 support. We proposed to affirm in a calendar notice. In response, Respondent has 4 submitted a letter to the calendaring judge. We construe the letter as a memorandum 5 in opposition to our calendar notice. We have considered the claims made in 6 Respondent's memorandum in opposition, but we are not persuaded that affirmance 7 is not the correct disposition in this case. We therefore affirm. 8 Respondent was awarded permanent and modifiable spousal support of $700

9 in September 2006. [RP 53] In April 2008, Petitioner successfully moved to modify 10 spousal support due to increased expenses and Respondent's income from retirement 11 and other benefits. [RP 57] Respondent contests the modification of spousal support 12 from $700 per month to $450 per month. In our calendar notice, we pointed out that 13 the district court considered various factors before making its decision, including the 14 economy, the job market, the decline in car sales, Petitioner's increased expenses and 15 decreased earnings, and Respondent's failure to fully exhaust other sources of 16 assistance. We concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in 17 determining that spousal support should be modified. In addition, we explained that 18 Respondent's request for certain documents and for an order protecting her from 19 harassment must be made in the district court.

2

1

Respondent claims that the reasons given in our calendar notice were not

2 "comprehensive to [her] reasons for an appeal, and "not even complete in what [she's] 3 stated as [her] issues with the original decision in this case." Respondent does not 4 provide specific information with respect to her claim that the calendar notice did not 5 fully address her issues. See Hennessy v. Duryea, 1998-NMCA-036,

Download CA30603.pdf

New Mexico Law