GRANTS STATE BANK V. POUGES, 1972-NMSC-074,
84 N.M. 340, 503 P.2d 320 (S. Ct. 1972)
GRANTS STATE BANK, a New Mexico Banking
Corporation,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
vs.
JAMES POUGES, Defendant-Appellee
SUPREME COURT OF NEW MEXICO
1972-NMSC-074, 84 N.M. 340, 503 P.2d 320
Appeal from the District Court of
Valencia County, Sedillo, Judge
VERN HALE, Grants, New Mexico, Attorney
for Plaintiff-Appellant.
W. P. KEARNS, JR., Grants, New Mexico,
Attorney for Defendant-Appellee.
STEPHENSON, Justice, wrote the opinion.
John B. McManus, Jr., J., LaFel E. Oman,
J.
{*341} STEPHENSON,
Justice.
{1} Grants State Bank
("the Bank") sought judgment against Mr. Pouges for a deficiency on a
promissory note after repossession and sale of an automobile. Judgment was for
defendant, and the Bank appealed.
{2} The Bank in its first
four points asserts that the court erred in refusing to make certain findings
requested by it.
{3} The first two of the
requested findings relate to whether or not Mr. Pouges was in default on the
date of repossession, and whether or not defendant properly received notice of
the proposed sale. If these findings favorable to the Bank had been adopted,
they would not necessarily have effected the ultimate disposition of the case.
Thus, the trial court's failure to adopt these requested findings was not
reversible error. Maryland Cas.Co. v. Foster,
76 N.M. 310,
414 P.2d 672 (1966);
Hunker v. Melugin,
74 N.M. 116,
391 P.2d 407 (1964); Save-Rite Drug Stores v.
Stamm,
58 N.M. 357,
271 P.2d 396 (1954).
{4} The other refused
requests relate to the fair market value of the automobile at the date of the
sale and the balance owing to the Bank after the sale. If adopted, these findings
would have been supported by substantial evidence, but the trial court adopted
contra findings also supportable by substantial evidence. Here again, this does
not constitute reversible error. As we stated in Armijo v. Via Development
Corporation,
81 N.M. 262,
466 P.2d 108 (1970):
"Where the evidence is conflicting, the refusal to make
findings and conclusions favorable to the unsuccessful party cannot be
sustained as error. Gilon v. Franco, 77 N.M. 786, 427 P.2d 666 (1967); Varney
v. Taylor, 77 N.M. 28, 419 P.2d 234 (1966)."
Finally, in its last two points the Bank argues that the
trial court erred in making certain findings as to the fair market value of the
automobile at the time of the sale and the commercial reasonableness of the
sale. These findings cannot be disturbed since they are supported by
substantial evidence.
{5} Finding no error the
judgment is affirmed.
John B. McManus, Jr., J., LaFel E. Oman, J.