Montano v. Howes

1 This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports.
2 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum
3 opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain
4 computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of
5 Appeals and does not include the filing date.
6 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
7 JANELL L. MONTANO, n/k/a
8 JANELL L. GRIEGO,
9 Petitioner-Appellee,
10 v. No. 34,225
11 DANNY D. HOWES,
12 Respondent-Appellant.
13 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF McKINLEY COUNTY
14 Grant L. Foutz, District Judge
15 Advocate Law Center, P.A.
16 Bobbie P. Franklin
17 Gallup, NM
18 for Petitioner-Appellee
19 William G. Stripp
20 Ramah, NM
21 for Respondent-Appellant
22 MEMORANDUM OPINION
23 BUSTAMANTE, Judge.
1 {1} Respondent appeals from orders and judgments by which he was held in
2 contempt and required to pay child support arrears. We previously issued a notice of
3 proposed summary disposition in which we proposed to affirm. Respondent has filed
4 a memorandum in opposition. After due consideration, we remain unpersuaded by
5 Respondent’s assertions of error. We therefore affirm.
6 {2} In his docketing statement Respondent challenged the validity of the 1997 order
7 by which he was originally required to pay child support. [DS 6] We proposed to
8 summarily reject the argument. [CN 3-4] The memorandum in opposition contains
9 nothing that is responsive. [MIO 2-4] The issue is therefore deemed abandoned. See
10 generally State v. Johnson, 1988-NMCA-029, ¶ 8, 107 N.M. 356, 758 P.2d 30611 (observing that where a memorandum in opposition does not respond to our proposed
12 summary disposition with respect to an issue, that issue is deemed abandoned).
13 {3} Respondent challenges the award of attorney fees to Petitioner, on grounds that
14 counsel for Petitioner should have been disqualified as a consequence of the law
15 firm’s representation of him many years ago. [MIO 2-3] In our notice of proposed
16 summary disposition we observed that none of the rules of professional conduct upon
17 which Respondent has relied would render disqualification mandatory. [CN 2-3] The
18 memorandum in opposition contains neither further argument relative to any of the
19 rules, nor citation to any other authority. Instead, Respondent simply reiterates his
2
1 belief that the representation was improper based on the firm’s past representation of
2 him, as well as the district court judge’s former association with counsel for Petitioner.
3 [MIO 2-4] Given the absence of supporting legal analysis and authority, we adhere to
4 our initial assessment. See generally City of Eunice v. N.M. Taxation & Revenue
5 Dep’t, 2014-NMCA-085, ¶ 17, 331 P.3d 986 (“Where a party cites no authority to
6 support an argument, we may assume no such authority exists”); Corona v. Corona,
7 2014-NMCA-071, ¶ 26, 329 P.3d 701 (“The appellate court presumes that the district
8 court is correct, and the burden is on the appellant to clearly demonstrate that the
9 district court erred.”).
10 {4} Accordingly, for the reasons stated above and in the notice of proposed
11 summary disposition, we affirm.
12 {5} IT IS SO ORDERED.
13
14 _______________________________________
15 MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge
16 WE CONCUR:
17
18 MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Chief Judge
19
20 J. MILES HANISEE, Judge
3