the Claim Objection fails on the merits. The only argument advanced in the Claim Objection is that the Cavalry Claim is not owed by the Debtor because her ex-husband agreed to pay it in the MSA. This argument is not well taken. The Court assumes the MSA is valid and enforceable. Even so, the MSA only affects the rights and obligations between the Debtor and her ex-husband, not the rights of third parties. See, e.g., Sunwest Bank of Albuquerque v. Roderiguez, 108 N.M. 211, 770 P.2d 533, 538 (1989) (“Although the agreement may affect the rights and liabilities of the husband and wife between themselves, it has no effect upon the rights of a pre-divorce creditor who is not a party to the agreement.”); N.M. Educators Fed. Credit Union v. Woods, 102 N.M. 16, 690 P.2d 1010, 1012 (1984) (<HOLDING>). Nowhere did Cavalry or its predecessor in
holding that court enforcement of a settlement agreement is not state action for constitutional purposes holding that contention that defendant is not liable for a debt because exhusband agreed to pay it in the marital settlement agreement is not a meritorious defense holding that it is not holding that circuit court erred in failing to consider that marital property in the form of marital earnings was used to pay debt against nonmarital property holding that a settlement agreement is not a court order and therefore a violation of the settlement agreement would not subject a party to contempt