Moola v. Moolamalia
This text of Moola v. Moolamalia (Moola v. Moolamalia) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New Mexico Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
1 This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Reports. Please see 2 Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please 3 also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other 4 deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does not include the 5 filing date.
6 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
7 SUNITA MOOLA,
8 Petitioner-Appellant,
9 v. NO. 31,359
10 SURJIT MOOLAMALIA,
11 Respondent-Appellee.
12 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF DOÑA ANA COUNTY 13 James T. Martin, District Judge
14 Atkinson & Kelsey, P.A. 15 Thomas C. Montoya 16 Albuquerque, NM
17 for Appellant
18 Hubert & Hernandez, LLC 19 Marci E. Beyer 20 Las Cruces, NM
21 for Appellee
22 Winchester Law Firm, P.C. 23 Michael L. Winchester 1 Las Cruces, NM
2 Guardian ad Litem
3 MEMORANDUM OPINION
4 WECHSLER, Judge.
5 Wife appeals the award of attorney fees to Husband in this case. In our notice,
6 we proposed to affirm the award. Wife has timely responded. We have considered
7 her arguments and not being persuaded, we affirm.
8 In our notice, we proposed to conclude that there was no violation of rules that
9 would preclude the district court from considering a request for attorney fees. The
10 rules require a request for attorney fees to be made within fifteen days of entry of
11 judgment. Rules 1-054(E)(2) and 1-127 NMRA. Wife argues that the final judgment
12 was filed on July 23, 2010, and the request for attorney fees had to have been made
13 fifteen days after that date. Although the affidavit for attorney fees was filed on July
14 22, 2011, the itemization was not filed until October 25, 2011. Thus, Wife argues, the
15 request was untimely.
16 It appears, however, that there was a pending motion for reconsideration and
17 stay filed by Wife. [RP 611] That motion had not yet been ruled on before the
18 hearing on attorney fees. As a result, there was no final judgment to commence the
19 fifteen day period. Cf. Grygorwicz v. Trujillo, 2009-NMSC-009, ¶ 8, 145 N.M. 650,
2 1 203 P.3d 865 (stating that where a motion for reconsideration remains pending in the
2 district court, the judgment or order entered by the district court remains non-final).
3 We conclude that the request for attorney fees was timely filed.
4 Wife continues to argue that the district court erred in determining that there
5 was economic disparity throughout the entire case. She argues that there were two
6 time periods in this case: before the divorce and after the divorce. She contends that
7 economic disparity before the divorce was dispelled by a judgment at that time
8 equalizing the parties’ income. She concedes that there was economic disparity in the
9 time period after the divorce. She argues, however, that some of the itemized attorney
10 fees covered the time period before the divorce and that because the parties’ income
11 was equalized, the district court could not rely on economic disparity as a reason for
12 awarding fees relevant to that time period. We disagree.
13 There are factors other than economic disparity that the district court is to
14 consider in determining whether to award attorney fees. Wife argues that economic
15 disparity of the parties is the most important factor. Alverson v. Harris, 1997-NMCA-
16 024, ¶ 26, 123 N.M. 153, 935 P.2d 1165. Regardless, the district court’s ruling made
17 findings related to all the factors listed in Rule 1-127, including the economic
18 disparity of the parties, the complexity of the case, the reasonableness of counsel’s
19 fees, and Husband’s success on the merits. [RP 865] We conclude that the district
3 1 court did not abuse its discretion in finding that there was economic disparity that
2 would support the award of attorney fees. We decline to separate out the two time
3 periods and require the district court weigh the factors differently where the request
4 for attorney fees was for the entire case.
5 Finally, Wife continues to argue that because the district court did not provide
6 written analysis of the itemized time entries, it is impossible to determine whether the
7 award was appropriate. The cases cited by Wife in support of her claim that the
8 district court abused its discretion in failing to provide her with an analysis of the
9 itemized time entries do not require the district court to make such detailed findings.
10 Here, the district court reviewed all the itemized time entries and determined that only
11 256.5 hours of attorney time were related to this matter. [RP 936] Thus, it is clear that
12 the district court reviewed the time and determined whether it related to this matter.
13 Nothing more is required of the district court.
14 We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in its award of
15 attorney fees in this case.
16 For the reasons stated herein and in the notice of proposed disposition, we
17 affirm.
18 IT IS SO ORDERED.
19 _______________________________
4 1 JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge
2 WE CONCUR:
3 __________________________________ 4 CELIA FOY CASTILLO, Chief Judge
5 __________________________________ 6 LINDA M. VANZI, Judge
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Moola v. Moolamalia, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moola-v-moolamalia-nmctapp-2011.