Russell v. Russell
New Mexico Court of Appeals
740 P.2d 127 (1987)
- Written by Whitney Kamerzel , JD
Facts
Robert Russell (defendant) and Joan Russell (plaintiff) were married and had one child. Before the parties divorced, Joan had a cause of action against a company for causing her toxic shock syndrome. A divorce decree awarded Joan child support and alimony payments to be made by John. The divorce decree also ordered that if Joan pursued her cause of action, any amounts received for her personal well-being and pain and suffering were separate property, but any amounts received for past medical expenses were community property. After the divorce, Joan filed a motion to hold Robert liable for unpaid child support and alimony. Robert did not dispute the unpaid amounts, but he asked that Joan’s recent personal-injury settlement be analyzed to determine the amount of community property that belonged to him. Joan submitted evidence that she only paid $1,421.16 in medical costs because the remainder of her medical expenses, around $80,000, were paid for by her insurance company. Joan’s entitlement to the medical insurance was through Robert’s job in the Air Force, and Robert paid the insurance premiums. Joan stated that the settlement did not allow her to identify the total amount of the settlement, although she indicated that it was in excess of $80,000. The trial court found that the divorce decree required only Joan’s out-of-pocket medical expenses to be community property because that was the actual amount that the Russells lost. Robert appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Minzner, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.