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 Please 1 see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. 2 Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated 3 errors or other deviations from the official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
DAVID KARPIEN , 7 Petitioner-Appellant, 8
v. NO. 30,933 9 DAWN KARPIEN , 10 a/k/a DAWN JOHNSON , 11 Respondent-Appellee. 12
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF SANDOVAL COUNTY 13 John F. Davis, District Judge 14 Chappell Law Firm, P.A. 15 Sidney Childress 16 Albuquerque, NM 17 for Appellant 18 Trujillo Dodd, Torres, O’Brien, Sanchez, LLC 19 Donna Trujillo Dodd 20 Albuquerque, NM 21 for Appellee 222 MEMORANDUM OPINION 1 VIGIL, Judge. 2 Husband appeals an order dividing co mmunity property after remand from this 3 Court. We proposed to reve rse the property division. Wi fe has timely responded. We 4 have considered her arguments and not being persuaded, we reverse. 5 In our notice, we proposed to reverse th e determination regarding the valuation 6 of the residence and the debt attached thereto. In so doing, we proposed to conclude 7 that determining the equity in the community residences by using asset and debt 8 values from different years was error. Wi fe responds that the district court was 9 invoking its equitable powers in its determination of the value of the community 10 residence. Thus, she argues, the districtcourt considered Husband’s use of the 11 residence over the years since the parties’ separation. Sh e contends that Husband did 12 not sell the house in 2007 when or iginally ordered to do so and, as a result, she lost 13 money. [MIO 3] She also contends thatshe should have been entitled to rent from 14 Husband for his use of the residence. [MIO 3] All these circumstances, she contends, 15 the district court could have taken into consideration in determining the value of the 16 community residence. 17 While we agree that the district court could take such things into consideration 18 in determining how to divide community pr operty, there is no suggestion in the record 193 that the district court did take those things into consideration. The district court’s 1 order does not contain factual findings to explain his use of va luation from different 2 years. Without such explanation, we mustconclude that the district court erred. 3 Further, Wife argues that equity factoredinto the district court’s determination 4 that the insurance proceeds we re community property. If pr operty is separate as the 5 life insurance policy proceeds were here, it remains separate, and the district court 6 cannot award it as community property. Thus, the district court’s division of 7 community assets, which incl uded the insurance proceeds inHusband’s assets, is in 8 error. Further, there is nothing in the record supporting Wife’s claim that Husband 9 was allowed to pocket reimbur sements for Wife’s medical bills that should have been 10 calculated as community. This does not cure any error in awarding as community 11 property that which is separate. 12 Wife’s argument that the district court’s equitable powers support the property 13 division here are unsupported by record. Wh ile she poses a number of considerations 14 that the district court could have made. There is nothing in the record suggesting that 15 is what the district court did do. 16 For the reasons stated herein and in th e calendar notice, we reverse and remand 17 for recalculation and division of the community property. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED
. 194 _______________________________ 1 MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge 2
WE CONCUR: 3

___________________________ 4 JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge 5

___________________________ 6 CYNTHIA A. FRY, Judge 75