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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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 GERARDO SILVA, 2 Petitioner-Appellant, 3

v. No. A-1-CA-35080 4 MARIA SILVA, 5 Respondent-Appellee. 6 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF DOÑA ANA COUNTY 7 Darren M. Kugler, District Judge 8 Keithly & English, P.C. 9 Shane A. English 10 Anthony, NM 11 for Appellant 12 Rodey, Dickason, Sloan, Akin & Robb, P.A. 13 Edward Ricco 14 Jocelyn Drennan 15 Albuquerque, NM 16 for Appellee 17 MEMORANDUM OPINION 18 ZAMORA, Judge. 192 {1} Gerardo Silva (Husband) appeals from the di strict court’s entry of a final decree 1 of divorce. Husband challenges the district court’s allocation of income and expenses, 2 its valuation and allocation of communityproperty and debts, and the amount of 3 spousal support awarded to Maria Silva (Wife) . He also challenges the district court’s 4 time-sharing decision regarding their then minor child. Husband further alleges the 5 district court abused its di scretion by: (1) ordering him to pay Wife’s attorney fees, 6 and (2) holding him in contempt. Because of Husband’s failure to abide by the rules 7 of appellate procedure in the preparation of his brief in chief on his substantial 8 evidence issues, we decline to address those issues. We al so decline to review the 9 contempt and time-sharing issues as moot. As a result, we affirm the district court. 10 BACKGROUND 11
{2} The parties were married on November 13, 1980, in Durango, Mexico. Husband 12 became a United States citizen in 2012 and Wi fe was a legal permanent resident. They 13 had six children together, five of whom were adults at the time of the divorce 14 proceedings, and one that was a minor. Husband owned a pallet business in Las 15 Cruces, New Mexico. Wife worked as a house cleaner and was also employed in a 16 local restaurant. 17
{3} Husband filed a petition for a dissolution of marriage on February 25, 2014, 18 citing incompatibility and irreconcilable differences. Both parties had been residents 191 Rule 12-213 was recompiled as Rule 12-318 NMRA, effective for all cases 19 pending or filed on or after December 31, 2016. 20 3 of Doña Ana County, New Mexico, for at l east six months prior to Husband’s filing 1 of the divorce petition. The district court held a trial on the merits on April 17, 2015. 2 It entered a final decree of divorce on August 26, 2015. 3
{4} Because this is a memorandum opinion and the parties are familiar with the 4 factual background, we reserv e further discussion of the pertinent facts within the 5 context of the parties’ arguments. 6 DISCUSSION 7 A. Rule 12-213(A)(3), (4) (2010) NMRA 1and Substantial Evidence Arguments 8
{5} For all of his appellate issues, Husband challenges specific findings of fact and 9 conclusions of law “as not being supported by substantial evidence.” At this juncture 10 we address only those substantial evidence ch allenges to the distri ct court’s allocation 11 of income and expenses, its valuation and allocation of community property and debts, 12 the award of spousal support to Wife, and the award for attorney fees to Wife. 13
{6} The district court’s rulings are reviewedfor abuse of discretion. “An abuse of 14 discretion occurs when a ruling is clearly contrary to the logical conclusions 15 demanded by the facts and circumstances of the case.” Benz v. Town Ctr. Land, LLC , 16 2013-NMCA-111, ¶ 11, 314 P.3d 688 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 17 “When reasons both supporting and detracting from a decision exist, there is no abuse 184 of discretion.” Camino Real Envtl. Ctr., Inc. v. N.M. Dep’t of Env’t , 2010-NMCA1 057, ¶ 23, 148 N.M. 776, 242 P.3d 343. “[M] erely identifying the existence of 2 evidence which may have tended to support a different outcome does not demonstrate 3 an abuse of discretion.” Id. 4
{7} If there is substantial evidence to support a district court’s decision, it will not 5 be disturbed on appeal. Landavazo v. Sanchez , 1990-NMSC-114, ¶ 7, 111 N.M. 137, 6 802 P.2d 1283. “Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence that a reasonable mind 7 would find adequate to support a conclusion.” Id. “The question is not whether 8 substantial evidence exists to support th e opposite result, but rather whether such 9 evidence supports the result reached.” Las Cruces Prof’l Fire Fighters v. City of Las 10 Cruces , 1997-NMCA-044, ¶ 12, 123 N.M. 329, 940 P.2d 177. We “resolve[] all 11 disputes of [the] facts in favor of the successful party and indulge[] all reasonable 12 inferences in support of the prevailing party.” Id. “[W]e will not reweigh the evidence 13 nor substitute our judgment for that of the fact[-]finder.” Id. Thus, we will only 14 reverse when the evidence orreasonable inferences fro m the evidence cannot support 15 the district court’s findings and decisions. 16
{8} The appellate court presumes that the di strict court is correct, therefore the 17 burden is on the party claiming error to clearly demonstrate that the district court 18 erred. Farmers, Inc. v. Dal Mach. & Fabricating, Inc. , 1990-NMSC-100, ¶ 8, 111 195 N.M. 6, 800 P.2d 1063; see State v. Aragon , 1999-NMCA-060, ¶ 10, 127 N.M. 393, 1 981 P.2d 1211 (stating that we presume correctness in the district court’s rulings or 2 decisions and the party claiming error bears the burden of showing such error). 3
{9} We note that in Husband’s brief in chie f, his presentation of facts includes only 4 those favorable to his position, and excludes those that support the district court’s 5 contrary determination. In arguing each of the separate issues, he specifically 6 challenges numerous findings of fact and c onclusions of law as not being supported 7 by substantial evidence. However, he fails tojustify his contentions to this Court in 8 a manner that explains, based upon the recordas a whole, why the district court’s 9 findings of fact are erroneous. As explaine d below, merely reciting favorable facts and 10 then stating that various findings are not supported by substantial evidence is 11 inadequate to present a substantial evid ence argument on appeal . Husband therefore 12 presents us with the near impossible task of guessing at his arguments and the basis 13 for each, a task which we will not perform on his behalf. It is Husband’s responsibility 14 to tell this Court why the evidence the district court relie d upon does not amount to 15 substantial evidence to support its findings and decisions. 16
{10} Wife argues that by failing to follow the rules of appellate procedure, Husband 17 has waived his substantial review of the district court’s findings and decisions. Wife 186 also points out that Husband has set forth a recitation of evidence in a light most 1 favorable to his position, rather thanas required by Rule 12-213(A)(3) (2010). 2
{11} Rule 12-213(A) (2010) sets forth the requi rements applicable to an appellant’s 3 brief in chief. It provi des, in relevant part: 4 (3) . . . A contention that a . . . judgment or finding of fact is not 5 supported by substantial evidence shall be deemed waived unless the 6 summary of proceedings includes the substance of the evidence bearing 7 upon the proposition; 8 (4) . . . A contention that a . . . judgment or finding of fact is not 9 supported by substantial evidence shall be deemed waived unless the 10 argument identifies with particularitythe fact or facts that are not 11 supported by substantial evidence[.] 12 Thus, Husband was required to bring to this Court’s attention all evidence bearing 13 upon the issues, that is, not only the evidence that is favorable to Husband, but also 14 the evidence that is contrary to Husband’s position. See Aspen Landscaping, Inc. v. 15 Longford Homes of N.M., Inc. , 2004-NMCA-063, ¶ 28, 135 N.M. 607, 92 P.3d 53 16 (explaining that a party challenging a findi ng for lack of substantial evidence must 17 refer to “all of the evidence, both favorable and unfavorable, followed by an 18 explanation of why the unfavorable eviden ce does not amount to substantial evidence, 19 such as is necessary to inform both the appellee and the [appellate c]ourt of the true 20 nature of the appellant’s arguments”). 217 {12} This Court has emphasized the importance of the appellate rules by stating they 1 “exist to ensure the efficient and fair administration of justice.” Rio Grande Kennel 2 Club v. City of Albuquerque , 2008-NMCA-093, ¶ 55, 144 N.M. 636, 190 P.3d 1131. 3 “Although an important policy is to construe the Rules of Appellate Procedure 4 liberally so that appeals may be determinedon their merits, we will not implement that 5 policy to the point of making the [r]ules meaningless.” Id. (omission, internal 6 quotation marks, and citation omitted) . Because we apply a presumption of 7 correctness to the district court’s decision, it is Husband’s burden to demonstrate 8 error. In this case, Husband’s failure to comply with the rules has had the effect of 9 failing to meet his burden of showi ng how the district court erred. See id. ¶ 54. We do 10 note that Wife’s answer brief, as an alternative, painstakingly set forth the evidence 11 as required by Rule 12-213 (2010); however, it was not her burden to perform the 12 requisite work Husband failed to do. 13
{13} “Where the appellant fails to include the substance of all the evidence bearing 14 upon a proposition, [this Court] will not considera challenge to the sufficiency of the 15 evidence.” Wachocki v. Bernalillo Cty. Sheriff’s Dep’t , 2010-NMCA-021, ¶ 17, 147 16 N.M. 720, 228 P.3d 504 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted), aff’d, 2011- 17 NMSC-039, 150 N.M. 650, 265 P.3d 701. When an appellant disc usses only those 18 facts that “tend to show that some of the district court’s findings were contradicted[,]” 198 the appellant does not “address the substance of all the evidence bearing on the 1 findings” and therefore necessarily fails to “demonstrate how the evidence supporting 2 the district court’s findings fails to amount to substantial evidence.” Id. “To rule on 3 an inadequately briefed issue, this Court would have to develop the arguments itself, 4 effectively performing the parties’ work for them.” Elane Photography, LLC v. 5 Willock , 2013-NMSC-040, ¶ 70, 309 P.3d 53. “This creates a strain on judicial 6 resources and a substantial risk of error. It is of no benefit either to the parties or to 7 future litigants for this Court to promul gate case law based on our own speculation 8 rather than the parties’ caref ully considered arguments.” Id. “We will not search the 9 record for facts . . . in order to support generalized arguments.” Muse v. Muse , 10 2009-NMCA-003, ¶ 72, 145 N.M. 451, 200 P.3d 104. We therefore decline to review 11 Husband’s challenges to the district court’ s allocation of income and expenses, its 12 valuation and allocation of community property and debts, the award of spousal 13 support to Wife, and the award for attorney fees to Wife. 14 B. Contempt 15
{14} On November 24, 2014, the district court held an income modification hearing 16 at Husband’s request. At the hearing, Wife’s counsel introduced impeachment 17 evidence showing that Husband improperly co mpleted his federal tax return and that 18 he had earned more money fro m his pallet business than heoriginally claimed in an 199 apparent effort to convince the district court that he could not afford to pay Wife the 1 monthly amount it previously ordered him to pay. At the end of the hearing, the 2 following exchange took place: 3 [District Judge]: And, Mr. Silva, would you please rise? If you come 4 back in my courtroom again and lie to me, I’m putting you in jail. Do 5 you understand? 6

. . . . 7 [Husband]: I haven’t lied to you. 8 [District Judge]: Take him into custody. Give him 24 hours. You’re 9 making a mockery of this [c]ourt. 10 Husband was thereafter detained followi ng the hearing on November 24, 2014, and 11 he was released on November 25, 2014. Hu sband’s counsel did not object to the 12 district court’s order detaining Husband for twenty-four hours. 13
{15} On appeal, Husband argues that the distri ct court abused its discretion in citing 14 him for contempt at the close of the in come modification hearing and immediately 15 ordering his detention. Husband argues that the district court did not explain its 16 decision to hold Husband in contempt, and offered no specifics as to how Husband 17 presented false testimony or made a mockery of the court. He contends that “[i]f the 18 [district] judge in this case wished to pursue contempt sanctions against [Husband], 19 the only lawful avenue would have b een through non-summary indirect criminal 20 contempt proceedings where his guilt or i nnocence could be properly determined.” In 2110 response, Wife concedes that “[t]he [dis trict] court’s actions may well have been 1 intemperate” but she states that this Court need not address this issue because it is 2 moot and Husband does not raise the possibility of future collateral consequences 3 stemming from being held in contempt. We agree. 4
{16} “As a general rule, [appellate courts] do not decide moot cases. A case is moot 5 when no actual controversy exists and the court cannot grant actual relief.” Gunaji v. 6 Macias , 2001-NMSC-028, ¶ 9, 130 N.M. 734, 31 P.3d 1008 (internal quotation marks 7 and citations omitted); see State v. Favela , 2013-NMCA-102, ¶ 13, 311 P.3d 1213 8 (“[A] reviewing court generally does not decide academic or moot questions[.]” 9 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted )). There are exceptions to this general 10 rule: (1) “issues of substantial public intere st”; or (2) issues “which are capable of 11 repetition, yet evade review.” Gunaji , 2001-NMSC-028, ¶ 10. 12
{17} Husband did not file a reply or otherwis e respond to Wife’s assertions that the 13 contempt issue was moot, particularly whether Husband raised the possibility of future 14 collateral consequences. As a result of Hu sband’s failure to file a reply brief or 15 respond to Wife’s contentions, he has conceded the issue. See Delta Automatic Sys., 16 Inc. v. Bingham , 1999-NMCA-029, ¶ 31, 126 N.M. 717, 974 P.2d 1174 (stating that 17 the failure to respond to contentions made in an answer brief “constitutes a concession 18 on the matter” and stating that “[t]his C ourt has no duty to s earch the record or 1911 research the law to ‘defend’ in a civil cas e, a party that fails to defend itself on an 1 issue”). Therefore, we hold that Husband’s issue of whether the district court abused 2 its discretion in ordering Husband detained for criminal contempt is moot. 3 C. Time-Sharing 4
{18} Finally, Husband contends that although th e district court granted the parties 5 joint legal custody of their minor son, it abused its discretion by not establishing a 6 specified time-sharing schedule and insteadgranting sole physical custody to Wife. 7 The district court’s order instead stated that “because of the child’s age, the child shall 8 determine the visitation he wishes with his father.” Husband argues that in effect, the 9 court’s order denied him the opportunity to maintain a parent-child relationship with 10 their minor son. 11
{19} Because the child has reachedthe age of majority, time-sharing is no longer an 12 issue for this Court to address. See Favela , 2013-NMCA-102, ¶ 13 (“[A] reviewing 13 court generally does not decide academic or moot questions[.]” (internal quotation 14 marks and citation omitted)). 15 CONCLUSION 16
{20} Husband’s failure to comply with the Rules of Appellate Procedure, including 17 his burden to establish that the district c ourt’s findings of fact and decisions were not 18 supported by substantial evidence and his burde n to clearly demonstrate error was the 1912 basis for us rejecting his arguments. We affirm the district court’s orders on the 1 allocation of income and expenses, community property and debts, spousal support, 2 and attorney fees. We conclude that the contempt and time-sharing issues are moot 3 and therefore decline to address them. 4
{21} IT IS SO ORDERED. 5

6 M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge 7

WE CONCUR: 8

9 J. MILES HANISEE, Judge 10

11 STEPHEN G. FRENCH, Judge 12