Derringer v. Derringer

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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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 BARRIE LEE DERRINGER, 3 Petitioner-Appellee, 4 v. NO. 32,113 5 DAVID BRIAN DERRINGER, 6 Respondent-Appellant. 7 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY 8 Alisa Ann Hadfield, District Judge 9 Alain Jackson 10 Albuquerque, NM 11 for Appellee 12 David Derringer 13 Albuquerque, NM 14 Pro Se Appellant 15 16 KENNEDY, Judge. MEMORANDUM OPINION 1 David Derringer (Respondent) appeals from the district court s Minute Order 2 and Bifurcated Decree of Divorce. We issued a calendar notice proposing to dismiss 3 the appeal for lack of a final order. Respondent has filed a memorandum in 4 opposition to our calendar notice. Respondent has also filed an emergency motion to 5 dismiss the petition for divorce and the order of protection entered by the district court 6 or, in the alternative, stay the proceedings, order the district judge to recuse herself, 7 and remove the district judge from the bench. We have considered Respondent s 8 arguments, and we are not persuaded by them. We dismiss the appeal. As we 9 explained in our calendar notice, the decree entered by the district court grants the 10 parties a divorce, but reserves all other issues. The decree is not final for purposes of 11 appeal. The decree does not include an express determination that there is no just 12 reason for delay as required by Rule 1-054(B)(1) NMRA. The decree contains no 13 decretal language indicating that the district court intended for the order to be final 14 and appealable. See High Ridge Hinkle Joint Venture v. City of Albuquerque, 119 15 N.M. 29, 37, 888 P.2d 475, 483 (Ct. App. 1994). The decree does not determine all 16 issues of law and fact, or dispose of the case to the fullest extent possible. Kelly Inn 17 No. 102, Inc. v. Kapnison, 113 N.M. 231, 236, 824 P.2d 1033, 1038 (1992). Because 18 the decree is not a final order and is therefore not appealable, we dismiss 19 Respondent s appeal. Our appellate jurisdiction is limited to appeals that are timely 2 1 filed from final decisions, orders, or judgments. See State v. Lohberger, 2008-NMSC2 033, ¶ 19, 144 N.M. 297, 187 P.3d 162. We have no jurisdiction over this case. 3 Therefore, we need not address Respondent s emergency motion. 4 For the reasons discussed in this Opinion and in our calendar notice, we dismiss 5 Respondent s appeal. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 8 _______________________________ RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge 9 WE CONCUR: 10 _________________________________ 11 CELIA FOY CASTILLO, Chief Judge 12 _________________________________ 13 LINDA M. VANZI, Judge 3

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.