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 Please 1 see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. 2 Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated 3 errors or other deviations from the official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 HEIDI CAROLINE BARTON, 7 Petitioner-Appellee, 8

v. NO. 30,516 9 JAIME RIVERA, 10 Respondent-Appellant. 11 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF LEA COUNTY 12 Thomas A. Rutledge, District Judge 13 Max Houston Proctor 14 Hobbs, NM 15 for Appellee 16 Reagan & Sanchez, P.A. 17 Mark Terrrence Sanchez 18 Hobbs, NM 19 for Appellant 20 MEMORANDUM OPINION 21 KENNEDY, Judge. 22 Respondent appeals an order of paternityand division of property. In this 23 Court’s notice of proposed summary disposition, we proposed to affirm. Respondent 242 has filed an untimely memorandum inopposition and a motion to accept his 1 memorandum as timely. As he failed to seek an extension of time and as he provides 2 no explanation for why he failed to do so, wedeny his motion. Wehave nevertheless 3 exercised our discretion to review his un timely motion, and we have duly considered 4 his arguments. As we are not persua ded by Respondent’s memorandum, we affirm. 5 We need not consider Petitioner’s untimely motion in support of affirmance. 6 The District Court’s Relian ce on a Prior Judicial Deci sion that the Parties Were 7 Not Married 8 Respondent contends that the district court erred by not applying the doctrine 9 of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel to determine that he and 10 Petitioner had entered into a legally valid marriage. [DS 8] In our notice of proposed 11 summary disposition, we proposed to find no error because, at the time the district 12 court made its decision in this case, there was no judicial decision determining that the 13 parties had entered into a valid marriage and, in fact, a prior district court case had 14 determined that the parties were not validly married. 15 In Respondent’s memorandum in opposition, he provides no facts or authority 16 that would persuade this C ourt that our proposed summary disposition of this issue 17 should not be made. Accordingly, we conc lude that the district court did not err. 18 As we stated in our notice, now that this Court has reversed the prior judicial 19 decision on which the district court’s d ecision in this case was premised, Respondent 203 is free to file a motion in the district c ourt pursuant to Rule 1-060(B) NMRA for relief 1 from the judgment. See Rule 1-060(B)(5) (providing that a party may file a motion 2 for relief from judgment when “a prior judgment upon which it is based has been 3 reversed”); Rule 1-060(B)(6) (providing that a party may file a motion for relief from 4 judgment for “any other reason justifying re lief from the operation of the judgment”). 5 Contempt of Court 6 Respondent contends that he should not have been held in contempt of court 7 because there was no clear order of the district court that he violated. [DS 8] In our 8 notice, we proposed to find no error b ecause Respondent’s docketing statement did 9 not describe the testimony and any other evidence presented at the hearing on the 10 issue of contempt, thereby failing to providethe Court with sufficient information to 11 assess his claim. See Rule 12-208(D)(3) NMRA (requi ring the appellant to include 12 “a concise, accurate statement of the case summarizing all facts material to a 13 consideration of the issues presented”). We also noted that, to the degree that we 14 could assess Respondent’s claim of error ba sed on information in the record proper, 15 it appeared that the district court did not err in holding Respondent in contempt. 16 In Respondent’s memorandum, he again fails to provide this Court with any 17 information about the evidence presented at the hearing, instead choosing to argue that 18 this Court should not review the record pr oper in order to attempt to discern what 194 occurred in the district court. Respondent appears to believe that this Court is 1 required to accept the conclusion stated in his docketing statement that he was not in 2 contempt of court based on a limited recitation of one or two facts favorable to him. 3 Respondent is incorrect. An appellant is requi red to set out all re levant facts in the 4 docketing statement, including those facts that support the district court’s decision, see 5 Thornton v. Gamble , 101 N.M. 764, 769, 688 P.2d 1268, 1273 (Ct. App. 1984), and 6 Respondent failed to do so. Furthermore, factual recitations in the docketing 7 statement are only accepted as true if the record on appeal does not show otherwise. 8 See State v. Calanche , 91 N.M. 390, 392, 574 P.2d 1018, 1020 (Ct. App. 1978). In 9 our notice, we stated that th e record appeared to support the district court’s finding of 10 contempt, and Respondent has provided no fact s, argument, or authority that would 11 indicate that this conc lusion is incorrect. In any case, we need not decide the issue 12 based on the limited information we have in the record proper. Because Respondent 13 has failed to provide this Court with suffi cient information to address his claim, we 14 find no error. 15 Motion for a Stay Pending Appeal 16 Respondent asserts that the district court erred in denying his motion for a stay 17 of this case pending the outcome of the appeal of the prior case determining the 18 validity or invalidity of the parties’ marri age. [DS 8] In our notice of proposed 195 summary disposition, we proposed to hold that the district court did not abuse its 1 discretion in denying the motion for a stay. 2 Respondent’s memorandum in opposition asserts that the district court was 3 required to weigh the interest s of the parties to determin e whether to grant a stay but 4 provides no authority to suggest that the we ighing that the district court did in this 5 case or the conclusion that it reached was anabuse of discretion. Accordingly, we 6 conclude that the district court did not err in denying the motion. 7 Therefore, for the reasons stated in this opinion and in our notice of proposed 8 summary disposition, we affirm. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10

___________________________________ 11 RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge 12

WE CONCUR : 13

___________________________ 14 JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge 15

___________________________ 16 ROBERT E. ROBLES, Judge 176