William R. Federici

This case involved a certified question from federal bankruptcy court about the priority of claims against a liquor license during its transfer. The New Mexico Supreme Court held that NMSA 1978, Section 7-1-82 requires payment of taxes before a license can be transferred, but tax liens under Sections 7-1-37 and 7-1-38 only gain effect against other creditors once notice is properly recorded. In contrast, liens for liquor wholesalers under Section 60-6B-3(E) arise automatically on the date the debt is incurred without any recording requirement and hold superpriority status over unperfected liens, including state tax claims. The court reasoned that the statutes operate independently, with the wholesaler lien statute explicitly creating a lien that does not depend on general lien perfection rules.

business & regulatorytaxesproperty

In this case, plaintiff Storey sued the University of New Mexico Hospital after the hospital asserted a lien for emergency medical services on the $25,000 settlement proceeds from his uninsured motorist insurance policy following an accident with an uninsured driver. The trial court ruled the lien invalid under the New Mexico Hospital Lien Act but granted summary judgment to the hospital on its counterclaim for the underlying debt. On appeal, the New Mexico Supreme Court reversed the lien ruling and affirmed the summary judgment. The court held that the Act's broad language, covering any settlement or payment as compensation for injuries including those from an insurance carrier, permitted the lien on uninsured motorist proceeds. Summary judgment was proper because the hospital made a prima facie showing on the debt with no genuine factual dispute rebutted by the plaintiff.

torts & liabilityhealthcareprocedure

The case arose from a 1985 single-vehicle accident in New Mexico caused by Adriel Garza driving at excessive speeds while fleeing police; his father Homer Garza owned the vehicle and held an insurance policy from the defendants that included a signed drivers exclusion endorsement barring all coverage when Adriel operated the car. The plaintiff sought a declaratory ruling on coverage for liability and other claims after the insurer denied coverage based on the endorsement, and the trial court granted partial summary judgment to the plaintiff while denying the defendants' motion. On interlocutory appeal, the New Mexico Supreme Court reversed, holding that the exclusion was valid and enforceable under the Mandatory Financial Responsibility Act, which expressly permits such named-driver exclusions using substantially identical language, and that the policy's clear terms withheld coverage of any kind when Adriel was driving. The court limited its ruling to the coverage issue and directed entry of summary judgment for the defendants.

torts & liabilityprocedurebusiness & regulatory

In this case, plaintiff Boudar sued his former employer E G & G and several supervisors after being terminated for reporting that his supervisor had processed pornographic slides in the company lab using federal funds. The trial court allowed claims for retaliatory discharge and breach of an implied employment contract to go to the jury, which awarded compensatory and punitive damages to the plaintiff on the first count. On appeal, the New Mexico Supreme Court reversed, holding that the tort claim for retaliatory discharge was unavailable because it was first recognized in Vigil v. Arzola (1983) with only prospective effect, and this suit was filed in 1982 under the prior at-will employment rule. The court further held that the contract theory was improperly submitted to the jury because the plaintiff had not pled breach of contract and the defendant had not consented to trying that issue. The judgment was reversed and the case remanded.

labor & employmenttorts & liabilityprocedure

The case arose from a mortgage foreclosure suit filed by Buena Vista Land and Cattle Company against the Reifs, who had executed a promissory note secured by a mortgage, and against the McAdams, who were alleged guarantors of the note; Buena Vista sought a judgment on the debt, foreclosure sale, and deficiency. The McAdams filed an answer denying liability, raised legal defenses, and demanded a jury trial, but the district court struck the demand. The New Mexico Supreme Court held that the equitable issues of foreclosure and incidental legal issues (such as the existence of indebtedness and amount of any deficiency for the primary debtors) must be tried first to the court, but that the McAdams were entitled to a jury trial on the independent legal issue of their own liability as guarantors and for any resulting deficiency, applying the distinction drawn in Evans Financial Corp. v. Strasser between incidental and independent legal issues in foreclosure actions.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

In this case, Nichols Corporation sued general contractor Bill Stuckman Construction and its surety American Insurance Company to recover payments for financial assistance and services provided to a subcontractor on a public wastewater treatment plant project in New Mexico, asserting claims as a third-party beneficiary of the subcontract and under the Little Miller Act for recovery on the performance and payment bond. The jury found in Nichols's favor, awarding $125,073.04 and rejecting Stuckman's counterclaim that Nichols was a partner or joint venturer with the subcontractor. The New Mexico Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, concluding that the evidence supported the jury's determination that Nichols acted as a sub-subcontractor rather than a partner, and that the trial court did not commit reversible error in excluding certain deposition testimony, instructing the jury, or applying the parol evidence rule and Little Miller Act damages rules.

business & regulatory