Brown v. Matz

This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does not include the filing date. 1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 2 ANDRINA LYNN BROWN, 3 Petitioner-Appellee, 4 v. NO. 34,695 5 SCOTT MATZ, 6 Respondent-Appellant. 7 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY 8 Gerard J. Lavelle, District Judge 9 Andrina Lynn Brown 10 Albuquerque, NM 11 Pro Se Appellee 12 Scott Matz 13 Albuquerque, NM 14 Pro Se Appellant 15 MEMORANDUM OPINION 16 ZAMORA, Judge. 17 {1} Respondent has appealed from an award of child support arrears to Petitioner. 18 We previously issued a notice of proposed summary disposition in which we proposed 1 to uphold the district court’s decision. Respondent and Petitioner have filed responsive 2 memoranda. After due consideration, we affirm. 3 {2} We previously set forth the pertinent background information in the notice of 4 proposed summary disposition. We will focus here on the content of the memorandum 5 in opposition. 6 {3} Respondent continues to argue that the award of arrears to Petitioner was 7 improper, because the child has reached the age of majority and because Petitioner 8 received public assistance. [MIO 1–2] However, as we previously observed, neither 9 of these considerations diminish Respondent’s child support obligation. Tedford v. 10 Gregory, 1998-NMCA-067, ¶¶ 13, 24 , 125 N.M. 206 , 959 P.2d 540 (observing that 11 an action may be maintained to recover child support arrears even after the child has 12 reached the age of majority, and holding that a father’s duty to provide financial 13 support is unaffected by any money received from other sources). We therefore reject 14 Respondent’s first assertion of error. 15 {4} Second, Respondent renews his claim of judicial bias. [MIO 2-3] However, his 16 continuing reliance upon adverse rulings is unavailing. See State v. Fernandez, 1994- 17 NMCA-056, ¶ 21, 117 N.M. 673 , 875 P.2d 1104 (“The mere fact that a judge has 18 consistently ruled for or against one party cannot, standing alone, provide a basis for 19 a finding of judicial bias.” ). And we remain unpersuaded that any familiarity between [2] 1 the judge and Mr. Vickers, who is not on the court staff, supplies a basis for 2 disqualification. See Rule 21-211 NMRA (governing judicial disqualification). 3 {5} Third and finally, Respondent continues to argue that the district court erred in 4 “allow[ing] Petitioner to commit perjury” relative to the allegations of rape. [MIO 3] 5 However, as we previously observed, Petitioner was entitled to present her case. 6 Burnside v. Burnside, 1973-NMSC-091 , ¶ 16, 85 N.M. 517 , 514 P.2d 36 . And 7 although Respondent contends that Petitioner “has no evidence,” [MIO 4] Petitioner’s 8 testimony constitutes evidence. See State v. Soliz, 1969-NMCA-043 , ¶ 8, 80 N.M. 9 297, 454 P.2d 779 (observing that the testimony of a single witness constitutes 10 substantial evidence). As such, we perceive no merit to Respondent’s assertions of 11 error. 12 {6} Accordingly, for the reasons stated above and in the notice of proposed 13 summary disposition, we affirm. 14 {7} IT IS SO ORDERED. [15] 16 M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge 17 WE CONCUR: [18] 19 MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Chief Judge [1] 2 CYNTHIA A. FRY, Judge