January 7, 2019- Charles D. Hobson v. Gloria Hobson, No. A-1-CA-37594

1 	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
2 CHARLES D. HOBSON,
3 	Petitioner-Appellant,
4 v. 	No. A-1-CA-37594
5 	GLORIA HOBSON,
6 	Respondent-Appellee,
7 and
8 STATE OF NEW MEXICO ex rel.
9 HUMAN SERVICES DEPARTMENT,
10 	Intervenor.
11 	APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY
12 Debra Ramirez, District Judge
13 	Charles D. Hobson
14 Cedar Crest, NM
15 	Pro Se Appellant
16 Gloria Hobson
17 Albuquerque, NM
· 18 	pro Se Appellee
19 Becky S. Jiron
20 Albuquerque, NM
21 	for Intervenor
Court of Appeals of New Mexico
Filed 1/7/2019 9:05 AM
Mark Reynolds

1 	MEMORANDUM OPINION
2 VANZI, Chief Judge.
3 	{t} 	Petitioner, 	a 	self-represented 	litigant, 	appeals 	from 	the 	district 	court's
4 memorandum order. In this Court's notice of proposed disposition, we proposed
5 summary affirmance. Petitioner filed a memorandum in opposition (MIO), which we
6 have duly considered. Remaining unpersuaded, we affirm.
7 	{2} 	In his memorandum in opposition, Petitioner continues to argue that the district
8 court abused its discretion because it did not consider his future income when making
9 its determination regarding spousal support [MIO 1-3] and that the law cited in his
10 docketing statement in fact requires him to continue making payments, regardless of
11 	whether his ex-wife wishes to receive such payments and regardless of the fact that
12 all of their children are no longer minors [MIO 3-5]. Petitioner has not asserted any
13 	new facts, law, or argument, and has not otherwise persuaded us that our notice of
14 proposed disposition was erroneous. See Hennessy v. Duryea, 1998-NMCA-036,"
15 ,-r 24, 124 N.M. 754,955 P.2d 683 ("Our courts have repeatedly held that, in summary
16 calendar cases, the burden is on the party opposing the proposed disposition to clearly
17 point out errors in fact or law."); State v. Mondragon, 1988-NMCA-027, ,-r 10, 107
18 N.M. 421, 759 P.2d 1003 (stating that a party responding to a summary calendar
19 notice must come forward and specifically point out errors of law and fact, and the
2

1 repetition of earlier arguments does not fulfill this requirement), superseded by
2 statute on other grounds as stated in State v. Harris, 2013-NMCA-031, ,-r 3, 297P.3d
3 3 7 4. We therefore refer Petitioner to our analysis therein.
4 	{3} 	Accordingly, for the reasons stated in our notice of proposed disposition and
5 herein, we affirm the district court's order.
6 {4} 	IT IS SO ORDERED.
7
8
9 WE CONCUR:
JO ~J. l11 	M. MONICA ZAM 	, Judge
12~~~13 	JULEJ.VGAs,Je
3