When a wife filed a petition to continue spousal support, the trial court improperly failed to consider her mental illness when determining whether she had complied with the requirements of the divorce decree. A New Mexico appellate court reversed a trial court's denial of the wife's petition and remanded the matter back to the trial court.

The divorce decree ending Lorranie Martinez' marriage dictated that her husband pay her spousal support for two years. In order for Martinez to continue receiving support after that date, she would have to prove that "she ha[d] undertaken reasonable steps toward her rehabilitation and employment during the two years in which she receive[d] alimony." During the two years Martinez worked sporadically and took two classes. She claimed that she was incapable of doing any more because of her mental illness.

As the end of the two year period approached, Martinez filed a petition seeking to extend her alimony payments. After a hearing, the court denied her request. She filed a motion for reconsideration, to which she attached an affidavit from a clinical psychologist that supported Martinez claim of mental illness, affirming that she suffered from panic disorder with agoraphobia and other psychological problems. The psychologist also stated that Martinez had done all that she was capable of doing during the two year period, The trial court, finding that Martinez failed to prove that she had complied with the divorce decree, once again denied her petition. She appealed.

The court of appeals considered all of the statutory factors governing requests to continue alimony, one as well as the evidence of Martinez' psychological problems and the parties' financial situations. The court then concluded that the trial court focused Martinez' burden of proof to the exclusion of these other factors, and held that the trial court was required to consider and make express findings on Martinez' mental health as it related to her ability to comply with the requirements of the divorce decree. In support of this finding, the court noted that the statutory requirement of considering the health of a spouse implicitly required consideration of the spouse's mental health.