May 1, 2019- Katherine L. Cowley v. William Cowley, No. A-1-CA-37689

1 	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
2 	KATHERINE L. COWLEY,
3 	Petitioner-Appellee,
4 v. 	No. A-1-CA-37689
5 WILLIAM COWLEY,
6 	Respondent-Appellant.
7 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF DONA ANA COUNTY
8 Mary W. Rosner, District Judge
9 Bates Law Firm
10 Lloyd 0. Bates, Jr.
11 	Las Cruces, NM
12 for Appellee
13 	Sarah Van Cott
14 Las Cruces, NM
15 	for Appellant
16 	MEMORANDUM OPINION
17 M. ZAMORA, Chief Judge.
18 	{l} 	Respondent has appealed following the entry of a final decree of dissolution
19 	of marriage. We previously issued a notice of proposed summary disposition in which
20 we proposed to vacate arid remand for further proce~dings. Petitioner has filed a
Court of Appeals of New Mexico
Filed 5/1/2019 1:06 PM
Mark Reynolds

1 responsive 	memorandum. 	After 	due 	consideration, 	we 	adhere 	to 	our 	initial
2 assessment. We therefore vacate in part, and remand for further proceedings.
3 {2} 	The pertinent background information was previously set forth in the notice of
4 proposed summary disposition. We will avoid undue reiteration here, focusing instead
5 on the content of the responsive memorandum.
6 	{3} 	First and foremost, we understand Petitioner to contend that the unchallenged
7 aspects of the final decree, concerning child custody, communication, child support,
8 healthcare, 	financial 	disclosures, 	the 	restoration 	of 	Petitioner's 	name, 	and
9 indemnification, inter alia, should be left intact. [MIO 1-3] Succinctly stated, we
10 agree.
11 	{4} 	Next, we understand Petitioner to suggest that we 'dismiss' the questions and
12 concerns relative to the disposition of the proceeds of the sale of the marital residence
13 	which are the object of Respondent's appeal and the subject of our notice of proposed
14 summary disposition, because Respondent failed to present or specifically request
15 	findings of fact and conclusions oflaw. [MIO 2-3] However, this does not operate as
16 a bar to appellate review. See, e.g., Jury v. Jury, 2017-NMCA-036, ,-r 27, 392 P.3d
17 242 (commenting upon the "notable absence of findings of fact and conclusions of
·1s 	law supporting the district court's ruling[,]" and observing that although neither of
19 the parties submitted proposed findings and conclusions, appellate review was not
2

1 precluded). "[W]here the record is sufficiently clear to allow the appellate court to
2 clearly understand which issues were raised and argued to the trial court, and not
3 abandoned, the appellate court may address these issues on their merits." Cordova v.
4 	Taos Ski Valley, Inc., 1996-NMCA-009, 114, 121 N.M. 258, 910 P.2d 334,339. As
5 described at greater length in the notice of proposed summary disposition, the issue
6 raised by Respondent on appeal was obviously raised below and not abandoned. We
7 therefore decline Petitioner's invitation to dismiss the appeal. [MIO 3]
8 	{5} 	Accordingly, for the reasons previously stated, we conclude that the portion of
9 the decree .which concerns the disposition of the proceeds of the sale of the marital
10 residence must be vacated. However, we clarify that other unchallenged aspects of
11 	the final decree should remain undisturbed. We therefore partially vacate the decree,
12 and remand for .further proceedings on the aforementioned issue.
13 	{6}
14
15
IT IS SO ORDERED.
16 WE CONCUR:
19 	~>59120 JEI?L.ATTREP, Jud
3