This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
The case involves a dispute between a plaintiff and a licensed retail automobile dealer, Outwest Auto Corral, LLC, and its surety, Western Surety Company, over the sale of a used car. The plaintiff purchased the car, signed necessary documents, and made payments, but the dealer did not transfer the title due to an incomplete emissions test. The car was later reported stolen, and the plaintiff could not reclaim it as the title was not in her name. The dealer then transferred the title to itself and claimed insurance proceeds. The plaintiff discovered that the dealer had not properly disclosed damage to the car before the purchase (paras 2-3).
Procedural History
- District Court, Bernalillo County: The district court granted partial summary judgment to the plaintiff on the Unfair Practices Act claim, dismissed the defendant's counterclaim for malicious abuse of process, and granted judgment as a matter of law on the defendant's breach of contract counterclaim (paras 3-4).
Parties' Submissions
- Appellant (Defendant): Argued that partial summary judgment on the Section 57-12-6 claim was unjustified, that the district court erred in granting judgment as a matter of law on the breach of contract counterclaim, and that the district court should have awarded attorney fees and costs under the UPA (paras 5, 18, 22).
- Appellee (Plaintiff): Argued that the district court correctly granted partial summary judgment due to the lack of an affidavit, that the breach of contract counterclaim was properly dismissed, and that the award of attorney fees and costs was justified (paras 5, 18, 22).
Legal Issues
- Whether the district court properly granted partial summary judgment on the Section 57-12-6 claim.
- Whether the district court erred in granting judgment as a matter of law on the defendant's breach of contract counterclaim.
- Whether the district court correctly awarded attorney fees and costs under the UPA.
- Whether the district court properly dismissed the defendant's counterclaim for malicious abuse of process.
Disposition
- The court affirmed the district court's grant of partial summary judgment on the Section 57-12-6 claim.
- The court affirmed the district court's judgment as a matter of law on the defendant's breach of contract counterclaim.
- The court upheld the district court's award of attorney fees and costs to the plaintiff.
- The court affirmed the dismissal of the defendant's counterclaim for malicious abuse of process.
Reasons
Per Wray J. (Henderson and Yohalem JJ. concurring):
- The court found that the district court correctly granted partial summary judgment because the defendant failed to provide an affidavit as required under Section 57-12-6, establishing a prima facie case of willful misrepresentation, which the defendant did not rebut (paras 6-17).
- The court held that the district court properly granted judgment as a matter of law on the breach of contract counterclaim because the defendant failed to present evidence of damages, specifically attorney fees and costs, as required under the contract (paras 18-21).
- The court determined that the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorney fees and costs to the plaintiff, as the plaintiff was the prevailing party under the UPA, and the fees were properly accounted for (paras 22-29).
- The court concluded that the district court correctly dismissed the malicious abuse of process counterclaim, as the defendant did not demonstrate a lack of probable cause in the plaintiff's filing of the complaint (paras 30-31).