facts that we have relied upon for affirmance. The hearing officer’s decision is amply supported by her conclusion that Buyer made initial use of the product in New Mexico when it transferred title to the materials to Taxpayer after they were rendered inert and made disposable. Taxpayer does not dispute this. The hearing officer found it significant that the neutralized materials remained in New Mexico. Again, Taxpayer had an opportunity to contest whether the neutralized materials had in fact remained in New Mexico. That being the case, we will not reverse the decision on the basis of Taxpayer’s claim that the hearing officer considered facts not offered by a party and that were subject to dispute. See State ex rel. Martinez v. Lewis, 116 N.M. 194, 206, 861 P.2d 235, 247 (Ct.App.1993) (<HOLDING>).; In re Estate of Heeter, 113 N.M. 691, 695,
holding the findings of fact required to support an alimony award are sufficient if findings of fact have been made on the ultimate facts at issue in the case and the findings of fact show the trial court properly applied the law in the case holding that findings of fact are reviewed for clear error holding that findings of fact and legal conclusions are neither necessary nor proper in summary judgment proceeding holding that erroneous findings of fact not necessary to support the judgment are not grounds for reversal holding where movant asserts several grounds in support of its summary judgment motion and the trial court does not specify the grounds on which judgment was granted the reviewing court can affirm the judgment if any of the grounds are meritorious