Hinzo v. Hinzo
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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 LORRIE M. HINZO, 3 Petitioner-Appellee, 4 v. No. 34,352 5 JASON P. HINZO, 6 Respondent-Appellant, 7 STATE OF NEW MEXICO ex. rel 8 HUMAN SERVICES DEPARTMENT, 9 Intervenor. 10 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF DOÑA ANA COUNTY 11 Mary W. Rosner, District Judge 12 Advanced Legal Resolutions, LLC 13 Sarah Van Cott 14 Las Cruces, NM 15 for Appellee 16 Jason P. Hinzo 17 Sioux Fall, SD 18 Pro Se 19 Hector B. Balderas, Attorney General 20 Lila Bird, Special Assistan Attorney General 1 Santa Fe, NM 2 for Intervenor 3 MEMORANDUM OPINION 4 VIGIL, Chief Judge. 5 {1} Respondent appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to modify child 6 support. This Court’s second notice of proposed summary disposition proposed to 7 affirm various findings of the district court, but to reverse the judgment below because 8 it awarded support for periods during which Respondent could not be characterized 9 as a noncustodial parent for purposes of NMSA 1978, Section 27-2-28(A) (2009). 10 [2CN 4] That notice proposed to remand this case to the district court for entry of a 11 support order that is consistent with the requirements of Section 27-2-28. [Id.] The 12 State has filed no response. Respondent, however, has filed a document in which he 13 does not oppose the proposed summary disposition. We, therefore, reverse the 14 judgment entered below and remand to the district court for the entry of an appropriate 15 order of support. 16 17 18 {2} IT IS SO ORDERED. ______________________________ MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Chief Judge 1 WE CONCUR: 2 ___________________________________ 3 LINDA M. VANZI, Judge 4 ___________________________________ 5 STEPHEN G. FRENCH, Judge 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
