March 25, 2020- Eric Jones v. Becky Jones, No. A-1-CA-37638

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
ERIC JONES,	2
Petitioner-Appellee,	3
v. 	No. A-1-CA-37638	4
BECKY JONES,	5
Respondent-Appellant.	6
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF COLFAX COUNTY	7
Emilo Jacob Chavez, District Judge	8
Eric Jones	9
Raton, NM	10
Pro Se Appellee	11
Becky Jones	12
Albuquerque, NM	13
Pro Se Appellant	14
MEMORANDUM OPINION	15
VANZI, Judge.	16
{1} 	Respondent Becky Jones seeks to appeal from the district court’s order	17
resolving objections to the hearing officer’s recommendations regarding child support,	18
entered August 7, 2018. [3 RP 730] This Court issued a notice of proposed	19
disposition, proposing to summarily dismiss for the lack of a final order. Respondent	20
Court of Appeals of New Mexico
Filed 3/25/2020 8:14 AM

2
filed a memorandum in opposition, which we have duly considered. Unpersuaded, we	1
dismiss the appeal as premature.	2
{2} 	In this Court’s calendar notice, we proposed to dismiss based on the lack of a	3
final order. Upon our review, it appeared that following a decision by the district	4
court, Respondent filed a pleading challenging the basis for Petitioner’s objections to	5
the hearing officer’s recommendations. Respondent’s pleading was filed after the	6
entry of the district court’s order and calls into question–albeit indirectly–the basis for	7
the district court’s order. We proposed to construe Respondent’s pleading as a motion	8
to reconsider, which has the potential to affect the finality of the underlying judgment	9
or order. [CN 3] See Grygorwicz v. Trujillo, 2009-NMSC-009, ¶ 8, 145 N.M. 650, 203	10
P.3d 865 (stating that when a post-judgment motion is filed that could alter, amend,	11
or moot the judgment, the judgment is no longer final for purposes of appeal, and the	12
time for filing a notice of appeal begins to run from the filing of the order disposing	13
of the post-judgment motion). Because Respondent filed a timely motion to	14
reconsider, and the district court has not expressly ruled on Respondent’s motion, the	15
district court has not yet been divested of jurisdiction. See Rule 12-201(D)(4) NMRA	16
(stating that the district court retains jurisdiction to dispose of one of the types of	17

3
motions for reconsideration listed in Rule 12-201(D)(1), (2), upon the filing of such	1
a motion).	2
{3} 	In the memorandum in opposition, Respondent argues that she was informed	3
by the district court that the order she wishes to appeal was a final order and she	4
should begin appellate proceedings. [MIO PDF 1] Respondent also argues that she	5
was not given the time allocated by law for Respondent to object to the Petitioner’s	6
objections to the hearing officer’s recommendations. [MIO PDF 1] Respondent does	7
not point this Court to any authority to support her argument that she was not	8
allocated appropriate time. See Curry v. Great Nw. Ins. Co., 2014-NMCA-031, ¶ 28,	9
320 P.3d 482 (“Where a party cites no authority to support an argument, we may	10
assume no such authority exists.”). To the extent that Respondent wished to object to	11
the Petitioner’s objections, we note that Respondent was allowed to respond to the	12
hearing officer’s recommendation, and she was so informed. [3 RP 725] By the time	13
Respondent filed her objections, the district court already had entered an order	14
adopting some of the hearing officer’s recommendations, but also reducing the	15
amount of child support the hearing officer suggested Petitioner pay. [3 RP 731]	16
Therefore, Respondent’s objections were filed after the district court’s decision, and	17

4
we construe them as a motion to reconsider the district court’s order. See Rule 1-	1
053(E).2 NMRA (providing that within ten days after being served with the notice of	2
filing of recommendations, any party may file timely objections to the domestic	3
relation 	hearing 	officer’s 	recommendations). 	We 	note 	that 	nothing 	precludes	4
Respondent from filing a second appeal, after the district court makes a final	5
appealable decision on Respondent’s motion for reconsideration.	6
{4} 	Thus, for the reasons stated above and in this Court’s notice of proposed	7
disposition, Respondent’s appeal is dismissed for lack of a final, appealable order.	8
{5} 	IT IS SO ORDERED.	9
10
LINDA M. VANZI, Judge	11
WE CONCUR:	12
13
MEGAN P. DUFFY, Judge	14
15
ZACHARY A. IVES, Judge	16