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 printing company provided services to an association of shareholders for a proxy solicitation campaign, incurring costs exceeding the initial estimate due to additional work requested by the association's chairman. The association members were held jointly and severally liable for the unpaid debt. Subsequently, some members sued the association's law firm for legal malpractice, obtained a judgment, and used the proceeds to satisfy the printing company's judgment. They then sought contribution from other association members (paras 1, 3-7).
Procedural History
- Charles P. Young Co. v. Anaya, No. 19,763 (N.M. May 1, 1992): The court affirmed the judgment against the association members for $24,428.29 and ordered the trial court to award prejudgment interest (para 5).
Parties' Submissions
- Appellants: Argued that they were successors in interest to the judgment by virtue of the assignment and were entitled to discovery under Rule 69 to enforce the judgment. They also contended that contribution could be sought in the same action and that the trial court erred in requiring a separate action for contribution (paras 9-11).
- Appellees: Asserted that the judgment had been satisfied through garnishment, rendering the assignment ineffective. They argued that contribution must be pursued in a separate action and moved to quash subpoenas and compel satisfaction of judgment (paras 8-9).
Legal Issues
- Was the assignment of the judgment to the appellants valid after the judgment had been satisfied?
- Can the appellants enforce their right to contribution using Rule 69 without first obtaining a separate judgment for contribution?
- Did the trial court err in requiring contribution to be sought in a separate action?
Disposition
- The trial court's decision was affirmed (para 11).
Reasons
Per Franchini J. (Ransom and Frost JJ. concurring):
The assignment of the judgment to the appellants was invalid because the judgment had already been satisfied through garnishment. Payment of a judgment by one joint debtor extinguishes the judgment, leaving nothing to assign (paras 9-10). The appellants could not use Rule 69 to enforce a right to contribution without first obtaining a separate judgment for contribution. Contribution claims must be adjudicated, quantified, and incorporated into an enforceable judgment before enforcement steps can be taken (para 10). While contribution can be sought in the same action under certain circumstances, the appellants failed to raise a cross-claim during the original trial, necessitating a separate action for contribution in this case (para 11).