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 Please 1 see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. 2 Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated 3 errors or other deviations from the official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

v. NO. 30,476 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 Peter H. Johnstone 17 Albuquerque, NM 18 for Appellant 19

MEMORANDUM OPINION 20 CASTILLO, Judge. 212 Respondent is appealing [RP 181] fro m a district court order [RP 165] 1 addressing the parties’ child support dispute, but leaving unaddressed the spousal 2 support issue before the court. We issu ed a calendar notice proposing to dismiss. 3 Respondent has filed a memorandum in oppositi on. Not persuaded that the underlying 4 order should be treated as final and appealable, we dismiss. 5 A judgment is not final and appealable unless it practically disposes of the 6 merits of the underlying controversy, leav ing only issues collateral to and separate 7 from that underlying controversy to be resolved. See Kelly Inn No. 102 v. Kapnison , 8 113 N.M. 231, 238, 824 P.2d 1033, 1040 (1992), limited on other grounds by Trujillo 9 v. Hilton of Santa Fe , 115 N.M. 397, 851 P.2d 1064 (1993) . As indicated, Respondent 10 filed a notice of appeal [RP 181] on May 5, 2010, from a district court order that 11 addressed the parties’ child support dispute, but left unresolved the spousal support 12 issues. [RP 165] As indicated by the court’ s order, the matter ha d come before the 13 court on Respondent’s motion to modify ch ild support and Petitioner’s counter-motion 14 to increase spousal support and for payment of child support. [RP 64, 85, 165] Our 15 calendar notice observed that the outstanding claim for spousal support renders the 16 order non-final pursuant to Rule 1-054(B)(1) NMRA, in the absen ce of a certification 17 of finality. The order in this case does not contain certification language. 18 Accordingly, we proposed to dismiss the appeal. 193 In his memorandum in opposition, Respondent relies on language in the Marital 1 Settlement Agreement (MSA) that sets forth the terms of the child support obligation 2 to argue that piecemeal litigation will be avoided because there will not be any 3 continued child support given the children’ s ages. [MIO 5-6] Respondent further notes 4 that the spousal support issue may still arise in the future, irrespective of any 5 resolution of the current claims. [MIO 8-9] We are not persuaded by these arguments. 6 An order is not deemed final simply becausea single claim has beenresolved. To the 7 contrary, Rule 1-054 expressly deems such orders to be non-final in the absence of 8 certification language. Respondent concedes th at the district court did not intend to 9 certify this order as final. [MIO 8] Wealso note that Petitioner, in her counter10 motion, observed that the MSA intertwine d the amount of spousal support with the 11 calculation of child support. [RP 88, ¶ 19] Accordingly, we conclude that the 12 underlying order is non-final and we dismiss the appeal. 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14

___________________________________ 15 CELIA FOY CASTILLO, Judge 16 WE CONCUR: 17

__________________________________ 18 JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge 194 __________________________________ 1 LINDA M. VANZI, Judge 2