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 financial disputes arising from the purchase of cars by the Respondents, who entered into finance agreements with high interest rates and additional fees. After defaulting on payments, the vehicles were repossessed and sold at auction, leaving a deficiency balance. The debt was then assigned to Autovest, a third-party debt collector, which sought to recover the remaining deficiency years after the default (paras 2-4).
Procedural History
- Autovest, L.L.C. v. Agosto, 2021-NMCA-053: The Court of Appeals dismissed the creditor's lawsuit, holding that the UCC's four-year statute of limitations barred the claim and that the partial payment rule did not apply to revive the statute of limitations (para 1).
Parties' Submissions
- Plaintiff-Petitioner: Autovest argued that the partial payment made by the Respondents revived the statute of limitations under New Mexico's partial payment rule, allowing them to pursue the deficiency claim (para 5).
- Defendants-Respondents: The Respondents contended that the UCC's four-year statute of limitations barred the claim and that the partial payment rule did not apply due to the exclusion provision in Chapter 37 (para 4).
Legal Issues
- Does the partial payment rule revive the statute of limitations for breach of contract actions under the UCC?
- Does the UCC's tolling provision override the exclusion provision in Chapter 37, allowing the partial payment rule to apply?
Disposition
- The Supreme Court of New Mexico affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision, holding that the partial payment rule does not revive the statute of limitations for breach of contract actions under the UCC and that the UCC's tolling provision does not override the exclusion provision (para 9).
Reasons
Per Thomson, Chief Justice (Vigil, Bacon, Zamora JJ., and O'Connell J. concurring):
The Court held that the exclusion provision in Chapter 37 precludes the application of the partial payment rule when another statute, like the UCC, establishes a different limitation period. The UCC's tolling provision, which states that it does not alter the law on tolling, does not override the mandatory exclusion provision. The Court emphasized that accepting Autovest's argument would allow for the indefinite revival of claims, contrary to legislative intent. The Court also noted that the partial payment rule has existed solely in statute and has not been recognized as a common law doctrine in New Mexico (paras 10-26).