This memorandum opinion was not selected for publi cation in the New Mexico Reports. Please see 1 Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please 2 also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other 3 deviations from the official paper version file d by the Court of Appeals and does not include the 4 filing date. 5 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 6 KIMBERLY B. FEINBERG, 7 Petitioner-Appellee, 8

v. NO. 30,974 9 ROBERT H. FEINBERG, 10 Respondent-Appellant. 11

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY 12 Gerard J. Lavelle, District Judge 13

Armand T. Carian 14 Albuquerque, NM 15 for Appellee 16 Law Office of Peter H. Johnstone, P.C. 17 Peter H. Johnstone 18 Albuquerque, NM 19 for Appellant 20 MEMORANDUM OPINION 21 BUSTAMANTE, Judge. 22 Respondent seeks to appeal from an order of the district court that purports to 232 be final as to spousal support issues and child support issues, but which sends the 1 spousal support arrearage calculation to arb itration. We issued a notice of proposed 2 summary disposition, proposing to dismiss th e appeal for lack of a final appealable 3 order. Respondent has file d a memorandum in opposition in response to our notice. 4 We have considered Respondent’s memorandum in opposition and it does not 5 persuade us that our proposed analysis was incorrect. We, therefore, dismiss. 6 Our notice expressed several concerns about the lack of finality in the order 7 from which Respondent has sought to appeal. First, we noted that although the district 8 court seemed to believe that its order was final when it sent the spousal support 9 arrearage issue to arbitration, we were concerned that under the circumstances that 10 would not be the court’s final deliberative action in the proceeding. Compare Britt 11 v. Phoenix Indem. Ins. Co. , 120 N.M. 813, 815-16, 907 P.2d 994, 996-97 (1995) 12 (holding that compelling arbitration of the parties’ uninsured motorist dispute is the 13 final deliberative action of the distri ct court in this insurance case) with Edward 14 Family Ltd. P’ship v. Brown , 2006-NMCA-083, ¶¶ 8-9, 140 N.M. 104, 140 P.3d 525 15 (holding that referring a matter to arbitrati on was not final because the court would not 16 divest itself of the power to further rule on the case and the case could return to the 17 district court to approve the resolution or resolve remaining claims). We noted that 18 the district court would not lose authority over any ongoing child custody and spousal 193 support issues; it would have to approve the resolution; and it could affect the other 1 issues over which the court has ongoing ju risdiction. Respondent’s response to our 2 notice does not address the substance of th is proposed analysis and therefore does 3 allay our concerns. As a result, we hold th at the district court’s temporary referral of 4 spousal support arrearages did not divest the court of power to rule further in the 5 matter and, therefore, the order is not final on those grounds. 6 Second, we noted that Respondent has filed a previous appeal to this Court from 7 an order of the district court which de termined Respondent’s child support obligation 8 and ruled that spousal support should remain as is. The order also noted that there 9 were arrearages in the spousal support oblig ation, which the parties were to resolve 10 within thirty days of the order. [R P 165-67] This Court dismissed Respondent’s 11 appeal as nonfinal because the district court did not fully resolve all the spousal 12 support issues and the order did not cont ain the certification language under Rule 1- 13 054(B)(1) NMRA. [RP 240-42] Since we issu ed mandate, the district court entered 14 the current order at issue. The order does not seem to resolve anything more than the 15 previous order because it again does not resolve the spousal support arrearage matter; 16 this time sending it to arbitration instead of ordering the parties to resolve it. [RP 243- 17 44] 18 We expressed concern that the current order simply tries to make the previous 194 order final without a full resolution of th e spousal support issues and without using 1 the requisite certification language we referred to in our previous dismissal. In 2 response to our notice, Respondent has not obt ained from the district court an order 3 with the proper certificati on language under Rule 1-054(B )(1) and he has not clearly 4 explained why the district court’s current order has resolved more than its previous 5 order. Alternatively, Respondent has not explained why we should accept the 6 language in the current order as sufficient with an explanation of why the current 7 order has resolved more than the previous order. As a result, Respondent has given 8 this Court no reason to believe that there is sufficient distinction between the 9 proceedings at the time of Respondent’s previ ous appeal and this appeal to justify a 10 different result in this case. 11 Third, we expressed concern about wh ether certification for immediate appeal 12 in this case would be proper because it seemed that the issues were intertwined. See 13 Khalsa v. Levinson , 1998-NMCA-110, ¶ 20, 125 N.M. 680, 964 P.2d 844 (stating that 14 a district court may abuse its discretion incertifying its judgment under the rule where 15 “the issues decided by the judgment are inte rtwined, legally or factually, with the 16 issues not yet resolved, or when resolution of the remaining issues may alter or revise 17 the judgment previously entered”). We expressed concern that the spousal support 18 issues could be intertwined with the child support issues, in light of Respondent’s 195 argument that modifying child support is triggered by a motion to modify spousal 1 support. Respondent has not clarified for us why the issues are interrelated in the 2 marital settlement agreement, but are not intertwined for purposes of appeal. 3 For these reasons and those stated in our notice, Respondent has not persuaded 4 us that the district court’s order is properly before us on appeal. 5 Lastly, we do not agree with Respondent that we are prohibiting Respondent 6 from ever obtaining review of the district court’s rulings. Respondent can obtain an 7 order from the district court with the proper language certifying the matter for 8 immediate appeal and can make a persuasi ve argument for why the certification was 9 proper. Without this showing in the curre nt appeal, however, we dismiss for lack of 10 a final, appealable order. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12

13 MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge 14 WE CONCUR: 15

16 RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge 17

18 LINDA M. VANZI, Judge 196