A.C. v. C.B.
| Decision Date | 30 January 1992 |
| Docket Number | No. 12335,12335 |
| Citation | 1992 NMCA 12,829 P.2d 660,113 N.M. 581 |
| Parties | A.C., Petitioner-Appellant, v. C.B., Respondent-Appellee. |
| Court | Court of Appeals of New Mexico |
Petitioner-appellant's motion to exclude the names of the parties and the child from any opinion written in this matter is granted. The opinion in this case shall be captioned A.C. v. C.B. The parties shall be referred to as the biological mother and Petitioner. The child who is the subject of these proceedings shall be referred to as the child without further identification.
Petitioner appeals from an order of the district court denying her motion under Rule 60(B)(3) of the New Mexico Rules of Civil Procedure, SCRA 1986, 1-060(B)(3), to reopen the judgment of the district court, or, in the alternative, to enforce an oral settlement agreement between the parties. We reverse and remand to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Petitioner's verified Rule 60(B)(3) motion provides most of the factual background giving rise to this litigation. Petitioner, a woman, and Respondent, the biological mother, lived together for approximately fourteen years before separating on July 1, 1987. About seven years earlier, in 1980, the parties, according to Petitioner, entered into an oral agreement to raise a child as coparents. In September of 1980, the biological mother gave birth to the child, conceived through artificial insemination. Petitioner alleges that during the pregnancy she attended Lamaze classes, and after the birth she shared the responsibility of caring for the child. Petitioner also alleges that she spent the majority of her evenings and weekends with the child until the separation. Petitioner and the biological mother together set up a trust fund for the child's education, as well as a savings account and life insurance policy for the child's benefit. Petitioner alleges that she has shared the financial responsibility for raising the child.
Petitioner's motion to reopen the judgment alleges that the biological mother in her will named Petitioner as guardian and trustee of the child. Petitioner claims that the original coparenting agreement was renewed by the parties before their separation and honored until March 1988, the date Petitioner claims that the agreement was breached by severe restrictions on her claimed rights to visit and have contact with the child. Petitioner claims her offers of financial support for the child were refused.
As a result, Petitioner filed this action in October 1988, seeking joint legal custody and time-sharing. In March 1989, the court entered an order dismissing the petition with prejudice. The order was signed by the district judge and the attorneys for each party. The order states that "[t]he parties have entered into a settlement agreement providing for dismissal for this action with prejudice." About five months later, Petitioner filed a verified petition to set aside or reopen or, in the alternative, to enforce the settlement agreement under Rule 60(B)(3). The motion to reopen the judgment alleges that the matter was referred to the district court clinic which made certain recommendations. Petitioner alleges that, as a result of those recommendations, the parties entered into an oral agreement covering time-sharing, parenting classes for Petitioner, therapy, and mediation. According to Petitioner, counsel for the biological mother refused to reduce that agreement to writing. Petitioner claims that agreement formed the basis for the dismissal of her action with prejudice on March 23, 1989.
In response to the motion to reopen the judgment, the biological mother moved for summary judgment. The summary judgment motion sets up a number of legal defenses which challenge Petitioner's standing to claim any rights to the child. Attached to her motion for summary judgment is the biological mother's affidavit which denies the existence of any agreement made at any time regarding the child. The biological mother asserts her fitness as a parent and states that no legal relationship existed between the child and Petitioner that would confer any "rights, privileges, duties and obligations" on the latter.
Petitioner responded to the biological mother's motion for summary judgment asserting the existence of issues of material fact, i.e., whether agreements between the parties had been made, and whether Petitioner was a de facto parent. Petitioner attached her affidavit to the response which reasserts the agreements and provisions made regarding the child. Petitioner also attached a copy of the biological mother's will naming Petitioner as guardian and trustee of the child.
Following a hearing, at which no testimony was taken, the district court entered an order granting the biological mother's motion for summary judgment and affirming the earlier dismissal with prejudice. The minute order includes findings of fact. Those findings indicate that the district court considered the matter disposable on legal grounds without the need for an evidentiary hearing. The district court found that no valid legal marriage existed between the parties, there was no adoption of the child by Petitioner, and thus, Petitioner had no standing or enforceable rights. The district court recited the earlier dismissal and found Petitioner had not met her burden under Rule 60(B) to reopen the judgment. While determining that it need not address whether or not the parties entered into an enforceable contract, the district court concluded that, even "if some form of contractual relationship existed between the parties, it [was] not in the best interest of the minor child" and, therefore, not enforceable. The district court also upheld the constitutionality of New Mexico statutes that bear on the questions presented. This appeal followed.
Although Petitioner's response to the biological mother's motion for summary judgment raised factual issues regarding the agreements, we read the district court's minute order as resolving the issues on legal grounds.
The posture of this case presents a unique situation. A determination of Petitioner's rights depends on her first, establishing a basis for setting aside the order of dismissal and, assuming she is successful in doing so, second, establishing a basis for either shared custody or visitation. We are unable to review the merits of Petitioner's claims of entitlement to custody and visitation, or for that matter the merits of her Rule 60(B) motion, without factual determinations. Understandably, the district court, having concluded as a matter of law that no basis existed to set aside the dismissal, saw no need to decide factual questions.
While we refrain from making a definitive decision regarding Petitioner's claims at this time, we hold that she made a prima facie showing which, if proved, would justify setting aside the dismissal and authorize consideration of her right to continue her relationship with the child. Thus, on that basis, we reverse and remand.
We first address Petitioner's Rule 60(B) motion. Under that discussion, we decide first whether the district court had jurisdiction to entertain the motion and, second, whether Petitioner made a prima facie showing that would allow the district court to set aside the dismissal. Next, we consider the district court's determination that enforcement of the alleged settlement agreement would be contrary to the best interests of the child. Finally, we discuss Petitioner's request for alternative relief should the district court decline to enforce the alleged settlement agreement.
The biological mother argues that when the parties stipulated to a dismissal of the case with prejudice, the district court lost jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter and could not thereafter decide any matters presented or enforce alleged stipulations of the parties. We recognize that the district court's control over a final judgment exists for a limited period of time. NMSA 1978, Sec. 39-1-1 (Repl.Pamp.1991); SCRA 1986, 12-201. Section 39-1-1, however, has never been viewed as depriving the district court of jurisdiction to consider and resolve a subsequent timely motion under Rule 60(B). Wooley v. Wicker, 75 N.M. 241, 244-45, 403 P.2d 685, 687-88 (1965) (). In fact, the purpose of Rule 60 is "to provide a simplified method for correcting errors in final judgments" and to balance the competing principles of finality and relief from inequitable judgments. Phelps Dodge Corp. v. Guerra, 92 N.M. 47, 50, 582 P.2d 819, 822 (1978). We hold, therefore, that the district court had jurisdiction to consider the Rule 60(B) motion.
We turn next to the question of whether the district court properly denied the motion. The motion alleged, in essence, that the biological mother misrepresented her intention to abide by the settlement agreement once the case was dismissed with prejudice. We believe this allegation amounts to a prima facie basis for relief under Rule 60(B)(3). Unser v. Unser, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Janice M. v. Margaret K.
...or de facto parent to that child may . . . establish his or her entitlement to parental rights vis-a-vis the child"); A.C. v. C.B., 113 N.M. 581, 829 P.2d 660 (Ct.App.2002) (recognizing same-sex dual parent relationship and reversing trial court's ruling that a coparenting agreement was per......
-
Custody of H.S.H.-K., In re
...that two women had co-parented for seven years was, as a matter of law, against the best interest of the child. A.C. v. C.B., 113 N.M. 581, 829 P.2d 660, 664 (Ct.App.1992), cert. denied 113 N.M. 449, 827 P.2d 837 In Karin T. v. Michael T., 127 Misc.2d 14, 484 N.Y.S.2d 780 (Fam.Ct.1985), the......
-
Chatterjee v. King
...and Common Law {30} We next address Petitioner's arguments that New Mexico case law gives her standing based on A.C. v. C.B., 113 N.M. 581, 829 P.2d 660 (Ct.App.1992), and Barnae v. Barnae, 1997–NMCA–077, 123 N.M. 583, 943 P.2d 1036 , and that Subsection (K) “does not take into account the......
-
Chatterjee v. King
...Court of Appeals has already embraced the idea of a child having two mothers in appropriate situations. In A.C. v. C.B., 113 N.M. 581, 585, 829 P.2d 660, 664 (Ct.App.1992), the Court of Appeals held that a “[p]etitioner's sexual orientation, standing alone, is not a permissible basis for th......
-
The Children of Baby M.
...711 N.E.2d at 893–94 (holding that the trial court had jurisdiction to award visitation between child and de facto parent); A.C. v. C.B., 829 P.2d 660, 663 (N.M. Ct. App. 1992) (recognizing same-sex dual parent relationship and reversing the trial court‘s ruling that the co-parenting agreem......
-
Family law cases as law reform litigation: unrecognized parents and the story of Alison D. v. Virginia M.
...Mar. 22, 2004) (relying on Alison D. to support the rejection of visitation rights for the child's adult sibling). (119) A.C. v. C.B., 829 P.2d 660 (N.M. Ct. App. (120) In re Custody of H.S.H.-K., 533 N.W.2d at 419, overruling In re Z.J.H., 471 N.W.2d 202. (121) E.N.O. v. L.L.M., 711 N.E.2d......