Rosen v. Lantis

4 Citing cases

  1. Klinksiek v. Klinksiek

    136 N.M. 693 (N.M. Ct. App. 2004)   Cited 28 times
    Recognizing that remand for reconsideration of attorney fee award is appropriate when the trial court's order is reversed in part

    {17} Recreational expenses are included within the basic child support provided by the child support guidelines. In Rosen v. Lantis, 1997-NMCA-033, ¶ 10, 123 N.M. 231, 938 P.2d 729, we agreed that there is no statutory authority to add "sports" as an additional expense to be shared beyond basic child support. "The [child support] statute lists only a few expenses that can justify exceeding basic child support.

  2. Tomlinson v. Weatherford

    2017 NMCA 55 (N.M. Ct. App. 2017)   Cited 1 times

    We consider the immaterial findings mere surplusage, which may be disregarded. SeeRosen v. Lantis , 1997-NMCA-033, ¶ 21, 123 N.M. 231, 938 P.2d 729 ("[F]indings without legal consequence may be treated as surplusage and disregarded in that action and in subsequent litigation."); see also Tome Land & Improvement Co. v. Silva , 1973-NMSC-120, ¶ 18, 86 N.M. 87, 519 P.2d 1024 (ignoring as surplusage an erroneous finding that was clearly immaterial and irrelevant). Accordingly, we need not address Petitioner's contention that the findings are not supported by the pleadings or the record.

  3. Thompson v. Dehne

    147 N.M. 283 (N.M. Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 5 times
    Stating that where two "provisions cannot be harmonized, the specific section governs over the general"

    These guidelines greatly reduce the discretion of the court." Rosen v. Lantis, 1997-NMCA-033, ¶ 7, 123 N.M. 231, 938 P.2d 729. "Under NMSA 1978, Section 40-4-11.2 (1989), any deviation from the guidelines shall be supported by a written finding in the decree, judgment or order of child support that application of the guidelines would be unjust or inappropriate." See Grant v. Cumiford, 2005-NMCA-058, ¶ 25, 137 N.M. 485, 112 P.3d 1142 (internal quotation marks omitted).

  4. Pinnell v. Bd. of County Com'rs

    127 N.M. 452 (N.M. Ct. App. 1999)   Cited 18 times
    Recognizing exception to mootness doctrine when issue is of "substantial public interest" and is "capable of repetition, yet evading review"

    {12} We further note, however, that the Board never submitted a written answer to Plaintiffs' original complaint; nor did it respond in writing to Plaintiffs' motion for temporary injunctive relief. At trial, the Board orally raised the question as to whether Plaintiffs' complaint could be remedied without joining the Ski Company; however, the trial court never issued any formal ruling on this issue. {13} The order in the record from which Plaintiffs appeal dismisses the action below on its merits: it makes no mention of the Plaintiffs' alleged failure to join the Ski Company. See Rosen v. Lantis, 1997-NMCA-033, ¶ 12, 123 N.M. 231, 938 P.2d 729 ("This court has no authority to supply those missing findings." (citing Landskroner v. McClure, 107 N.M. 773, 775, 765 P.2d 189, 191 (1988))).