July 28, 2020- Wendy Fletcher v. Harold Ray Fletcher, No. A-1-CA-38419

Corrections to this opinion/decision not affecting the outcome, at the Court's discretion, can occur up to the time of publication
with NM Compilation Commission. The Court will ensure that the electronic version of this opinion/decision is updated accordingly
in Odyssey.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO	1
WENDY FLETCHER n/k/a	2
WENDY SMITH,	3
Petitioner-Appellee,	4
v. 	No. A-1-CA-38419	5
HAROLD RAY FLETCHER,	6
Respondent-Appellant,	7
and	8
STATE OF NEW MEXICO ex rel.	9
HUMAN SERVICES DEPARTMENT,	10
Intervenor.	11
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF ROOSEVELT COUNTY	12
Donna J. Mowrer, District Judge	13
Harmon Barnett Morris, P.C.	14
Tye C. Harmon	15
Clovis, NM	16
for Appellee	17
Harold Ray Fletcher	18
Jefferson, GA	19
Pro Se Appellant	20
Court of Appeals of New Mexico
Filed 7/28/2020 8:12 AM

2
MEMORANDUM OPINION	1
VARGAS, Judge.	2
{1} 	Respondent appeals from the district court’s order setting ongoing child	3
support and entering judgment for retroactive child support, entered July 24, 2019.	4
In this Court’s notice of proposed disposition, we proposed to summarily affirm.	5
Respondent filed a memorandum in opposition, which we have duly considered.	6
Unpersuaded, we affirm.	7
{2} 	In his memorandum in opposition, Respondent argues that the district court	8
should have applied Georgia law—which, he contends, does not allow retroactive	9
child support awards—in determining whether to award retroactive child support.	10
[MIO 1] Respondent argues that this was preserved in argument #3, apparently	11
referring to his docketing statement in which he requested case law to show that the	12
imposed $19,000 was lawful. [MIO PDF 1]	13
{3} 	Contrary to Respondent’s understanding, to preserve an issue for our review,	14
Respondent must have invoked a ruling by the district court. See Rule 12-321(A)	15
NMRA (“To preserve an issue for review, it must appear that a ruling or decision by	16
the trial court was fairly invoked.” (emphasis added)). Respondent does not explain	17
how he preserved this issue in district court, and our review of the record does not	18
indicate that he did so. Even if Respondent did request that the district court	19
specifically cite case law to support its decision, this would not, without more, “alert	20

3
the district court” to Respondent’s claim that it should apply Georgia law. See	1
Kilgore v. Fuji Heavy Indus. Ltd., 2009-NMCA-078, ¶ 50, 146 N.M. 698, 213 P.3d	2
1127, rev’d on other grounds by 2010-NMSC-040, 148 N.M. 561, 240 P.3d 648.	3
{4} 	To the extent Respondent intends to argue that Georgia, not New Mexico, had	4
jurisdiction over the parties and/or subject matter, this argument likewise was not	5
preserved because Respondent stipulated that the district court “had jurisdiction over	6
the parties and the subject matter[.]” [RP 49] See Rule 12-321(A). Finally, even if	7
Respondent had preserved this issue, he provides no authority for his contention that	8
Georgia law should apply. Therefore, we affirm the district court as to this issue. See	9
Farmers, Inc. v. Dal Mach. & Fabricating, Inc., 1990-NMSC-100, ¶ 8, 111 N.M. 6,	10
800 P.2d 1063. (“The presumption upon review favors the correctness of the trial	11
court’s actions. Appellant must affirmatively demonstrate its assertion of error.”);	12
Curry v. Great Nw. Ins. Co., 2014-NMCA-031, ¶ 28, 320 P.3d 482 (“Where a party	13
cites no authority to support an argument, we may assume no such authority	14
exists.”).	15
{5} 	Regarding the first and second issues Respondent asserted in his docketing	16
statement, he has failed to include further argument as to these issues in his	17
memorandum in opposition, so we deem these issues abandoned. See State v.	18
Johnson, 1988-NMCA-029, ¶ 8, 107 N.M. 356, 758 P.2d 306 (explaining that when	19
a case is decided on the summary calendar, an issue is deemed abandoned when a	20

4
party fails to respond to the proposed disposition of that issue). Accordingly, for the	1
reasons stated in our notice of proposed disposition and herein, we affirm the district	2
court’s order. See Hennessy v. Duryea, 1998-NMCA-036, ¶ 24, 124 N.M. 754, 955	3
P.2d 683 (“Our courts have repeatedly held that, in summary calendar cases, the	4
burden is on the party opposing the proposed disposition to clearly point out errors	5
in fact or law.”).	6
{6} 	IT IS SO ORDERED.	7
______________________________	8
JULIE J. VARGAS, Judge	9
WE CONCUR:	10
_____________________________	11
KRISTINA BOGARDUS, Judge	12
_____________________________	13
MEGAN P. DUFFY, Judge	14