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for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. 2 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum 3 opinions.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 306 11 (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