This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
A buyer entered into a contract with a licensed manufactured home dealer to purchase a customized mobile home, contingent on financing approval. The buyer made a down payment of $15,250, but financing was later denied due to a change in her income following her son's death. The buyer requested a refund, which the dealer refused, leading to arbitration and subsequent administrative action by the Manufactured Housing Committee (MHC) (paras 2-7).
Procedural History
- Arbitration Decision: The arbitrator ruled that the dealer could retain $3,724.24 of the deposit to cover expenses, awarding the remaining amount to the buyer (para 6).
- MHC Administrative Order: The MHC found the dealer violated regulations, ordered a full refund of $3,724.24, suspended the dealer's license for 30 days (stayed upon payment), and placed the license on six months' probation (para 7).
- District Court Decision: The district court upheld the MHC's order on administrative appeal (para 7).
Parties' Submissions
- Appellant (Dealer): Argued that the MHC was collaterally estopped from ordering repayment due to the arbitration decision and that the MHC improperly limited the dealer to one peremptory challenge during the disciplinary hearing (para 8).
- Respondent (MHC): Contended that it was not bound by the arbitration decision as it was enforcing statutory rights and acted in the public interest. It also argued that the dealer waived collateral estoppel by consenting to the MHC's proceedings (paras 15-18, 30).
Legal Issues
- Was the MHC collaterally estopped from ordering repayment due to the prior arbitration decision?
- Did the MHC violate the Uniform Licensing Act by allowing only one peremptory challenge during the disciplinary hearing?
Disposition
- The Supreme Court of New Mexico reversed the MHC's order requiring repayment of $3,724.24 and remanded for redetermination.
- The Court affirmed the MHC's decision to allow only one peremptory challenge (paras 40-41).
Reasons
Per Frost J. (Ransom and Franchini JJ. concurring):
Collateral Estoppel:
- The Court held that arbitration decisions can have preclusive effect if the parties had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issues (paras 12-14).
- The MHC was in privity with the buyer regarding the refund claim, as the arbitration resolved the same issue under the same regulation (paras 18-29).
- The MHC's pursuit of the refund claim was barred by collateral estoppel, but its broader disciplinary actions, such as probation, were not precluded as they served the public interest (paras 26-27).
Waiver:
- The Court rejected the MHC's argument that the dealer waived collateral estoppel, finding no express waiver in the settlement agreement (paras 30-31).
Peremptory Challenges:
- The Court upheld the MHC's interpretation of the Uniform Licensing Act, allowing only one peremptory challenge, as it was reasonable and consistent with the statute's purpose (paras 37-39).
Regulation 207(C):
- The MHC's finding of a violation of Regulation 207(C) (timely refund) could support disciplinary actions but not the full refund order, as damages from the delay were not quantified (para 33).
The Court emphasized that the MHC retains authority to impose disciplinary measures to protect the public interest, excluding monetary awards already resolved in arbitration (para 33).