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 Please see 1 Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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

v. NO. 28,843 9

RICHARD A. SALNESS, 10 Respondent-Appellee. 11

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF EDDY COUNTY 12 Thomas A. Rutledge, District Judge 13 McCormick, Caraway, Tabor & Byers, L.L.P. 14 Matthew T. Byers 15 Carlsbad, NM 16 for Appellant 17 Foster, Rieder & Jackson, P.C. 18 Travis G. Jackson 19 Albuquerque, NM 20 for Appellee 21

MEMORANDUM OPINION 222 BUSTAMANTE, Judge. 1 Cheri Erdek, formerly Ch eri Salness, appeals the denial of her Rule 1-060 2 NMRA motion for relief from judgment. In that motion, she argued that she should 3 be relieved from the child support agreement c ontained in the Parenting Plan with her 4 ex-husband, Richard Salness, because ch ild support was calculated based on faulty 5 methods set out in Erickson v. Erickson , 1999-NMCA-056, 127 N.M. 140, 978 P.2d 6 347. We review the denial of her Rule 1-060 motion for abuse of discretion, and 7 finding none we affirm. 8 BACKGROUND 9 The parties stipulated to a Decree of Dissolution of Marriage and Marital 10 Settlement Agreement on February 15, 2008. Pursuant to this agreement, child 11 support for the four marital children was cal culated based on the worksheet set out in 12 Erickson . On April 14, 2008, Cheri filed (1) a motion for modification of child 13 support based on changes in income, and (2 ) a Rule 1-060 motion for relief from the 14 prior judgment. With respect to the latter motion, she asserted that she had discovered 15 a clerical error in Erickson . Specifically, she asserted that its method of calculating 16 line nine of the child support worksheet was improper because it required that line two 17 be multiplied by line seven, whereas line nine should actually be calculated by 18 multiplying line five by line seven. She argued that based on this newly discovered 193 error, her prior agreement as to how ch ild support would be calculated was no longer 1 equitable. The district court granted the motion to modify child support based on the 2 changes in income, but denied her Ru le 1-060 motion for relief from judgment. This 3 appeal followed. 4 DISCUSSION 5 We do not address the substance of Cheri’ s claim relating to the alleged clerical 6 error in Erickson beyond its effect on whether the di strict court properly denied her 7 motion for relief from judgment. The substance of her Ericksonargument is not 8 properly before this Court. The court’s order indicates that it did not reopen the 9 judgment and did not consider any questions of law relating to Erickson . Absent any 10 consideration by the district court of the substance of Cheri’s arguments relating to 11 Erickson prior to entry of the judgment, this issue cannot have been preserved for 12 appeal. A motion for relief from judgment cannot be used to preserve issues not 13 otherwise raised during the proceedings below. See, e.g., Goodloe v. Bookout , 1999- 14 NMCA-061, ¶ 13, 127 N.M. 327, 980 P.2d 652 (“Raising the matter in their motion 15 for a new trial came too late; objections must be raised in time for the trial judge to 16 correct the error to prevent prejudice.”). “T o preserve an issue for review on appeal, 17 it must appear that [the] appellant fairly invoked a ruling of the trial court on the same 18 grounds argued in the appellate court.” Woolwine v. Furr's, Inc. , 106 N.M. 492, 496, 194 745 P.2d 717, 721 (Ct. App. 1987). Thus, we only address the issue of whether the 1 district court abused its discretion in denying Cheri’s Rule 1-060 motion for relief 2 from judgment. See Stein v. Alpine Sports, Inc. , 1998-NMSC-040, ¶ 6, 126 N.M. 258, 3 968 P.2d 769. Cheri argues that she should have been relieved from judgment based 4 on several provisions of Rule 1-060 including, (1) that pursuant to 1-060(A) there was 5 a clerical mistake in the judgment, orders, or parts of the record, (2) pursuant to 1- 6 060(B)(5) it is no longer equitable that the judgment should have prospective 7 application, or (3) pursuant to 1-060(B)(6) other considerations justify the relief. 8 None of the grounds asserted justify relie f from judgment, and the district court 9 did not abuse its discretion in denying Cheri’s motion. Cheri’s only basis for her 10 motion was that this Court’s decision in Ericksoncontained a mistake. Any alleged 11 clerical mistake that exists in Erickson , cannot be remedied under Rule 1-060(A). 12 This rule allows relief from judgment for cl erical mistakes arising from “oversight or 13 omission . . . by the court.” Id. For example, in Britton v. Britton , 100 N.M. 424, 426, 14 671 P.2d 1135, 1137 (1983), a judgment was amended pursuant to this section where 15 the word “per month” had been left off of an award for child support. In contrast, 16 Cheri attempts to use Rule 1-060(A) to correct an alleged clerical mistake in binding 17 legal precedent. This cannot be the functi on of the rule because, among other reasons, 185 it is not an oversight or omission by the presiding district court, and is thus outside of 1 its authority to correct. 2 Further, since Erickson remains valid and binding law on the district court, any 3 decision to waver from that precedent was outside of the district court’s discretion. 4 “The general rule is that a court lower inrank than the court which made the decision 5 invoked as a precedent cannot deviate therefro m and decide contrary to that precedent, 6 irrespective of whether it considers the rule laid down therein as correct or incorrect.” 7 Bank of Am. v. Apache Corp. , 2008-NMCA-054, ¶ 34, 144 N.M. 123, 184 P.3d 435 8 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted), cert. denied , 2008-NMCERT-003, 143 9 N.M. 681, 180 P.3d 1180. Thus, Cheri’s Ericksonargument was not a valid ground 10 for the district court to provide re lief from its judgment under any Rule 1-060 11 justification. It is particularly not appropriate to support a Rule 1-060(B)(5) motion. 12 Quite simply, such action was outside of the court’s discretion. F i n a l l y , a 13 motion for relief from judgment is not a substitute for a proper appeal. See 14 Koppenhaver v. Koppenhaver , 101 N.M. 105, 109, 678 P.2d 1180, 1184 (Ct. App. 15 1984). The only way for Cheri to have raised her Ericksonargument before this Court 16 would have been to properly raise the issu e before the district court’s February 2008 17 entry of judgment, and then file an appealwithin the deadline. Thus, Cheri cannot 18 resurrect an otherwise un-preserved, untimely appeal via Rule 1-060. 1967 CONCLUSION 1 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the decision of the district court denying 2 Cheri Erdeck’s Rule 1-060 motion for relief from judgment. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 5 MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge 6 WE CONCUR: 7

8 CYNTHIA A. FRY, Chief Judge 9

10 JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge 11