Tony Scarborough

Chavez sued his former employer, Manville Products Corp., alleging breach of an express or implied employment contract and retaliatory discharge after he was terminated following his refusal to participate in the company's lobbying efforts for federal asbestos legislation. The trial court granted summary judgment on the contract claims and a directed verdict on the retaliatory discharge claim. The New Mexico Supreme Court affirmed the summary judgment, reasoning that Chavez's 1965 written employment agreement, which barred oral modifications and specified at-will status, precluded any contrary oral assurances or implied contract terms. The court reversed the directed verdict on retaliatory discharge, holding that Chavez presented sufficient evidence of a prima facie case that his termination was motivated by his refusal to engage in the lobbying activity, and remanded for a new trial on that issue alone with a preponderance standard and damages including emotional distress.

labor & employmentfree speech

The case involved a DWI arrest by a Los Alamos municipal police officer who pursued and stopped the defendant just over the county line in Santa Fe County after observing erratic driving. The defendant challenged the arrest under the Fresh Pursuit Act, arguing the officer lacked authority for an extraterritorial stop and arrest for a petty misdemeanor. The New Mexico Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals and held that Section 31-2-8 of the Fresh Pursuit Act authorizes municipal police officers to make such arrests for DWI. The court reached this conclusion by interpreting the statute in pari materia with related laws, presuming legislative awareness of common-law fresh pursuit doctrine and DWI penalties, and determining that the legislature intended to expand extraterritorial arrest powers to include DWI offenses.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved borrowers who defaulted on a promissory note secured by a mobile home, after which the lender repossessed the collateral, placed it with a used-auto dealer, and sold it privately for $2,000 without advertising, resulting in a deficiency balance. The borrowers challenged the deficiency judgment, arguing that the sale violated UCC Article 9 because it was not commercially reasonable. The trial court granted the lender the deficiency amount plus interest and fees, finding sufficient notice and a commercially reasonable disposition. On appeal, the New Mexico Supreme Court affirmed, holding that private sales of collateral through regular commercial channels can be commercially reasonable even without public advertising, as the UCC recognizes sales to or through dealers when conducted fairly, and the record did not support a contrary finding. The court noted that commercial reasonableness turns on case-specific facts and that the burden rests on the creditor, but here the lack of advertising alone was not determinative.

business & regulatoryproperty

This case concerns a dispute between owners of undeveloped subdivision lots in New Mexico, their civic association VIA, and the original land developer Horizon. Lot owners sued VIA over allegedly improper assessments, failure to provide improvements, and related issues under indentures created during the land sales. VIA filed a third-party complaint seeking contribution or indemnity from Horizon, which the district court dismissed. The New Mexico Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the impleader did not satisfy Rule 1-014(A) because Horizon's potential liability was not derivative of or dependent on the claims against VIA, that impleading Horizon would unnecessarily complicate the litigation, and that the trial court retained discretion to dismiss even a timely third-party complaint. The court noted that VIA had not alleged an agency or control relationship that would support secondary liability.

procedurepropertybusiness & regulatory

In State v. Clark, Terry D. Clark pled guilty to the kidnapping and first-degree murder of nine-year-old Dena Lynn Gore after previously being convicted of similar crimes against a child, and a jury later imposed a death sentence. Clark appealed to the New Mexico Supreme Court, raising issues including the denial of his motion to withdraw the guilty plea (which he claimed was influenced by a gubernatorial commutation announcement), the timing of sentencing, jury arguments and instructions on aggravating circumstances and life sentences, victim impact testimony, and the validity of the "murder of a witness" aggravating factor. The court affirmed the convictions and death penalty, concluding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in accepting or refusing to withdraw the plea, that the statutory aggravating circumstance applied validly, and that none of the challenged rulings or instructions constituted reversible error.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a dispute between Bernice Stanton and Gordon Jewelry Corporation over jewelry purchases and trades made in 1983 at a New Mexico store. Stanton alleged fraud and bad faith breach of contract after cooperating in an embezzlement investigation of the store manager, seeking rescission of the contract along with damages and punitive damages; Gordon Jewelry counterclaimed for amounts allegedly owed on the account. The trial court ordered the return of purchased jewelry to Stanton (with her paying $2,223.16 on the account) and awarded her $50,000 in punitive damages. On appeal, the court affirmed the orders regarding the jewelry and account payment but reversed the punitive damages award, finding it unsupported by the record. The opinion also noted potential attorney misconduct in pleadings and referred the matter to the disciplinary board.

business & regulatorytorts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved a credit union that, due to a clerical error in transferring a borrower's account, marked a $65,000 promissory note and residential mortgage as paid and executed a release of the mortgage, which the borrowers then recorded. The borrowers stopped making payments and refused the credit union's request to reaffirm the debt after the error was discovered. The credit union sued to reinstate the mortgage and obtained summary judgment. The court affirmed, holding that under the New Mexico Commercial Code, an unintentional cancellation or release of an instrument due to mistake is ineffective, and the borrowers had not disputed the facts showing the error occurred without intent to discharge the obligation.

propertybusiness & regulatory

The case concerned whether the Valencia County Board of Commissioners could enter a twenty-year lease with option to purchase for a new jail facility to be built on county land, financed through certificates of participation sold to private investors, without voter approval. After voters twice rejected bond referendums for the jail, a county commissioner sued for a declaratory judgment that the arrangement violated Article IX, Section 10 of the New Mexico Constitution, which requires voter approval before a county incurs debt to erect public buildings. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants, but the New Mexico Supreme Court reversed, holding that the lease created unconstitutional indebtedness. The court reasoned that the agreement functioned as an installment-purchase contract under which the county acquired an equitable interest in the facility subject to forfeiture upon nonpayment or termination, and that each rental payment built equity rather than merely compensating for current use.

criminal lawproperty

In Edwards v. Mesch, the Mesches borrowed $6,000 from the Edwards via a promissory note at 10% interest, made one payment, and then defaulted, prompting the Edwards to sue for the unpaid balance plus interest. The Mesches contended on appeal that the Edwards had assigned the note to a corporation they owned, making the corporation the real party in interest and an indispensable party to the suit under rules of civil procedure. The New Mexico Supreme Court affirmed the district court's judgment for the Edwards, including attorney's fees. The court reasoned that under the Uniform Commercial Code, the Edwards as payees in possession remained holders entitled to enforce the negotiable instrument in their own name, and payment to them would discharge the Mesches' liability even after assignment.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In 1983, Irene Gartley and Barbara Schriber sued to reform a 1971 warranty deed from Louise Cunningham that conveyed a small tract of land subject to conditions prohibiting sale or rental during the grantor's life without consent, granting a right of first refusal to Phyllis Ricketts after the grantor's death at a fixed price, banning mobile homes, and extending similar limits to the grantee's heirs. Ricketts counterclaimed that Gartley's later conveyance to Schriber breached a condition subsequent. The trial court held the deed violated the rule against perpetuities and created an unreasonable restraint on alienation, reforming it to a fee simple; the New Mexico Supreme Court affirmed, reasoning that the preemptive right was not a future interest subject to the rule against perpetuities but that the restraint was unreasonable because it was unlimited in duration and barred transfer to a large number of potential buyers, contrary to the policy favoring free alienation.

property

The case involved Giorgio Spadaro seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the University of New Mexico to disclose student complaints that led to the cancellation of his job posting through the university's part-time student employment office, claiming a right of access under the New Mexico Inspection of Public Records Act. The trial court granted judgment on the pleadings in favor of the university, finding the complaints were not public records subject to disclosure. The New Mexico Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the complaints did not qualify as public records under the Act because they were not made by a public official authorized by law to create them, and the statute provides no broader definition requiring their release. A dissent argued the records were public and urged a balancing of interests under prior precedent.

civil rightsprocedure

The case involved James L’Allier’s personal injury lawsuit against Brian Turnacliff arising from a November 1986 car accident in Santa Fe. Turnacliff sought defense and indemnification from State Farm under the newly acquired car provision of his existing policy on a different vehicle, after he took possession of a 1983 Porsche in late October without notifying the insurer within 30 days. State Farm intervened for a declaratory judgment that no coverage applied and obtained summary judgment from the trial court. The New Mexico Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the policy’s notice period began to run upon delivery of the car on October 21 because the parties intended ownership to pass at that time, even though formal title transfer occurred later, and Turnacliff failed to provide timely notice or pay an additional premium. As a result, State Farm had no obligation to defend or indemnify at the time of the accident.

torts & liabilityproperty

The case involved the New Mexico Board of Examiners in Optometry suspending optometrist Robert Molina's license for fourteen days after he prescribed a topical ocular pharmaceutical agent without being certified under the Optometry Act. The district court reversed the suspension, but the appellate court reversed that decision and reinstated the Board's penalty. The court held that the statute requires an optometrist to submit proof of completing an approved 105-hour pharmacology course to the Board for certification, which Molina did not do, and that the Board's reliance on the course provider's list was a reasonable method of verification. It further concluded that the Board had authority to grant prehearing continuances and that prescribing the agent constituted prohibited use without certification. Procedural claims about discovery and hearing timelines lacked support in the record.

business & regulatoryhealthcareprocedure

This case involved a dispute over custody of two minor children between their biological father, Clyde Normand, and their maternal grandparents, the Rays, who had obtained a New Mexico adoption decree after hiding the children from Normand for years. Normand, who held a prior valid Texas custody judgment from 1978, filed a habeas corpus petition after locating the family, leading the trial court to void the adoption on grounds of fraud and lack of notice to him. The New Mexico Supreme Court affirmed that the adoption was void due to due process violations, including failure to provide required personal notice and the Rays' misrepresentations to the court, and that the Texas judgment was entitled to full faith and credit. However, the court reversed in part and remanded for a hearing to determine custody based on the best interests of the children, allowing evidence on parental fitness. The decision rested on constitutional habeas corpus authority, statutory notice requirements in adoption proceedings, and precedents recognizing habeas as a remedy for child custody disputes.

family law

In this case, Hotels of Distinction sued the City of Albuquerque for a declaratory judgment, claiming that a development agreement for constructing a hotel at the Albuquerque Convention Center using federal Urban Development Action Grant funds violated the New Mexico Constitution's antidonation clause, certain city ordinances, and notice requirements for resolutions. The trial court granted summary judgment to the City, and the New Mexico Supreme Court affirmed. The court reasoned that the federal funds channeled through the City did not constitute municipal funds subject to the antidonation clause, the City's three million dollars in public improvements were limited to public property, the plaintiff lacked standing to challenge affirmative action provisions in bidding, concession contracts were exempt from certain approval requirements, and publication notice was not required for resolutions rather than ordinances.

business & regulatoryfederal power

The case involved Phillip Cordova and his wife seeking to quiet title to approximately 126 acres of land in Taos County against various claimants, including the Arroyo Hondo Arriba Community Land Grant Association. The trial court ruled in favor of the Cordovas by quieting title in their name, but the Court of Appeals reversed this decision after determining that the association had standing to challenge the title. The New Mexico Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals, holding that the association lacked standing because it failed to contest the trial court's findings that it was not properly organized under state law, making those findings binding on appeal, and thus reinstated the trial court's decree quieting title in the Cordovas.

propertyprocedure

Transamerica Insurance Company sued Emil Sydow to recover worker’s compensation benefits it had paid to him that were attributable to medical malpractice rather than his original work injury. The trial court granted Transamerica’s motion for summary judgment, and the appellate court affirmed. The court reasoned that Sydow’s affirmative defense of accord and satisfaction lacked merit because no settlement of the reimbursement claim had occurred, Transamerica had subrogation rights after paying full benefits, and Sydow had agreed through his attorney to protect Transamerica’s reimbursement interests in settling the malpractice claim. The court also held that an affidavit regarding the malpractice issue was properly struck and that no genuine issues of material fact precluded summary judgment.

labor & employmenttorts & liabilityprocedure

This case involved a contract dispute between Bill McCarty Construction Co. and Seegee Engineering Co. over the supply of concrete for a school construction project, where McCarty sued for unpaid balances on concrete and earthwork totaling about $18,745, and Seegee counterclaimed for damages from defective concrete requiring full replacement of the second floor. The trial court awarded McCarty the amount claimed but granted Seegee its full counterclaim damages and denied prejudgment interest. On appeal, the New Mexico Supreme Court affirmed, holding that substantial evidence supported findings that the concrete failed to meet contract specifications and that removal of the entire floor was reasonable, and that prejudgment interest was properly denied as discretionary because the net amount due could not be ascertained with certainty before trial due to the unresolved counterclaim.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved a dispute over a land sale in New Mexico where the buyer stopped making payments on a promissory note and mortgage after August 1983, claiming the seller failed to adequately upgrade a road as required by the purchase agreement. The trial court ruled in favor of the seller on the foreclosure complaint, denied the buyer's counterclaims for damages, and awarded the unpaid principal balance along with attorney's fees. The appellate court affirmed the foreclosure judgment, holding that the note and mortgage were valid and enforceable together, that the buyer's long-term default justified acceleration of the balance despite the lack of an explicit acceleration clause, and that foreclosure was an appropriate remedy. However, the court remanded for a hearing on the reasonableness of the attorney's fees award due to insufficient evidence in the record. The decision relied on principles that notes and mortgages executed together are construed as one instrument and that mortgage holders have independent remedies to enforce liens.

propertyprocedure

The case concerned whether New Mexico statute NMSA Section 3-12-1.1, requiring single-member districts for city councilors in municipalities over 10,000 population, invalidated the City of Gallup's home-rule charter provisions allowing at-large elections. The New Mexico Supreme Court held that the statute does invalidate Gallup's at-large election system. The court reasoned that the statute qualifies as a general law because it applies statewide to all qualifying municipalities, and under the state constitution it expressly denies home-rule municipalities the power to maintain contrary election methods by mandating residence and election from single-member districts. The court rejected arguments that the statute lacked sufficient preemptive language or was unconstitutional due to its population threshold, noting the threshold covered over half the state's population and reflected a rational basis.

elections