Opinion ID: 1159233
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: immediate control over community residence

Text: The district court also found that husband was indebted to wife for her share in the community's interest in the Corrales residence in the amount of $27,194.00 and that husband was to pay wife for her share in the residence at the rate of $200 per month, including interest, commencing March 1, 1984; to be increased to $500 per month, including interest, commencing March 1, 1986, and continuing thereafter until paid in full. Wife argues that the district court erred in denying her complete and immediate control over her share of the residence because it did not require husband to pay her in full and because it unnecessarily extended husband's indebtedness to her for a period of at least ten years. We agree. A district court is under a duty to ease the transition of the parties after a divorce. Cunningham v. Cunningham, 96 N.M. 529, 632 P.2d 1167 (1981). One method of easing this transition is by granting each spouse complete and immediate control over his or her share of their community property. Id.; cf. Ridgway v. Ridgway, supra . The record clearly indicates that the residence had substantial equity and that husband did not request a long term installment plan of deferred payments for the residence. There was also no showing that husband was unable to make arrangements to pay wife her share of the equity in the house. We determine, therefore, that the district court abused its discretion in this case in refusing to provide that wife would receive complete and immediate control of her interest in the community property. On remand, the district court shall make provision for the payment of the full amount due to wife.