This memorandum opinion was not selected for pub lication 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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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. IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 1 GARY CHAVARRIA, 2 Petitioner-Appellant, 3

v. NO. A-1-CA-36120 4 SHERRY LYNN CHAVARRIA 5 n/k/a SHERRY JAMESON, 6 Respondent-Appellee. 7 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF DOÑA ANA COUNTY 8 Mary W. Rosner, District Judge 9 Almanza Abrams, P.A. 10 Steven L. Almanza 11 Las Cruces, NM 12 for Appellant 13 Kenneth L. Beal 14 Las Cruces, NM 15 for Appellee 16 MEMORANDUM OPINION 17 VANZI, Chief Judge. 182 {1} Petitioner Gary Chavarria appeals followi ng the district court’s entry of a 1 divorce decree and the denial of three mo tions for reconsideration. On appeal, 2 Petitioner contends (1) his refusal to sign the marital settlement agreement rendered 3 the agreement unenforceable, and (2) the district court erred in its application of Rule 4 1-060(B) NMRA. This Court issued a notice of proposed disposition, proposing to 5 affirm. Petitioner has filed a memorandum in opposition, which we have duly 6 considered. Unpersuaded, we affirm. 7 {2} In this Court’s calendar notice, we proposed that a number of the issues 8 Petitioner raised were not properly before this Court. We further proposed that, to the 9 extent Petitioner was contending that the district court’s order was void because 10 Petitioner did not sign a marital settlement agreement, the case law Petitioner relied 11 on did not support that conclusion. Specifically, we noted that Herrera v. Herrera , 12 1999-NMCA-034, ¶ 17, 126 N.M. 705, 974 P.2d 675, supports the proposition that 13 a signature on marital settlement documentsis not required where the agreement is 14 judicially supervised. 15 {3} In response, Petitioner conti nues to argue that his signature is required and that, 16 absent his signature, the agreement doe s not satisfy NMSA 1978, Section 40-2-4 17 (1907). Petitioner does not, however, address the fact that there was a trial and a 18 presentment hearing and that the district court heard testimony and made findings 19 regarding the agreement. See Herrera , 1999-NMCA-034, ¶ 13 (stating that “[w]hat 203 does prove the existence and therefore enforceability of the [marital settlement 1 agreement] is the testimony given to th e trial court”). Because Petitioner has not 2 addressed the specific testimony that wa s introduced or how that testimony was 3 insufficient to establish that an agreement existed, we concludethat Petitioner has not 4 satisfied his burden on appeal of overcoming the presumption of correctness in the 5 district court’s rulings. See Farmers, Inc. v. Dal Mach. & Fabricating, Inc. , 1990- 6 NMSC-100, ¶ 8, 111 N.M. 6, 800 P.2d 1063 (“The presumption upon review favors 7 the correctness of the trial court’s actions. Appellant must affirmatively demonstrate 8 its assertion of error.”); Hennessy v. Duryea , 1998-NMCA-036, ¶ 24, 124 N.M. 754, 9 955 P.2d 683 (“Our courts have repeatedly held that, in summary calendar cases, the 10 burden is on the party opposing the proposed disposition to clearly point out errors in 11 fact or law.”). 12 {4} Thus, we conclude that Petitioner has not demonstrated that the district court 13 abused its discretion in denying Petitioner’s re quest for relief. Accordingly, we affirm. 14 {5} IT IS SO ORDERED. 15

__________________________________ 16 LINDA M. VANZI, Chief Judge 17 WE CONCUR: 18

_________________________________ 19 JULIE J. VARGAS, Judge 204 _________________________________ 1 JENNIFER L. ATTREP, Judge 2