AI Generated Opinion Summaries

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 Plaintiff, Fleet Mortgage Corporation, sought foreclosure on a property after the Defendants, a divorced couple, defaulted on their mortgage payments. The property had been awarded to the husband in the divorce decree, and he was required to indemnify the wife. The wife executed a quitclaim deed as part of the process. The husband and Fleet later entered into an agreement for a deed in lieu of foreclosure, which the wife claimed discharged her liability and made her a third-party beneficiary of the agreement (paras 1-2).

Procedural History

• District Court of Colfax County: Granted summary judgment in favor of Fleet Mortgage Corporation, dismissing the wife’s counterclaims (para 1).

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Defendant-Wife): Argued that she was either a party to or a third-party beneficiary of the agreement between Fleet and her ex-husband. She also claimed damages for breach of the agreement and alleged negligent misrepresentation by Fleet (para 1).
• Appellee (Fleet Mortgage Corporation): Contended that the wife was neither a party to nor a third-party beneficiary of the agreement. Fleet argued that the wife’s execution of the quitclaim deed was a ministerial act required by the divorce decree and did not confer any rights under the agreement (paras 1, 3-4).

Legal Issues

• Was the wife a party to or a third-party beneficiary of the agreement between Fleet and her ex-husband?
• Did the wife have any enforceable claims against Fleet, including for negligent misrepresentation or prima facie tort?

Disposition

• The Supreme Court of New Mexico affirmed the trial court’s summary judgment in favor of Fleet Mortgage Corporation, dismissing all of the wife’s counterclaims (para 7).

Reasons

Per Franchini J. (Baca and Montgomery JJ. concurring):

• The wife was not a party to the agreement between Fleet and her ex-husband. The agreement was an accord, which is an executory agreement to settle a claim, and the wife had no interest in the property at the time of the agreement due to the divorce decree (paras 3-4).
• The wife’s execution of the quitclaim deed was a ministerial act required by the divorce decree and did not make her a party to the accord. The court could have achieved the same result without her participation under procedural rules (para 3).
• The wife was not a third-party beneficiary of the agreement. For a third-party beneficiary claim to succeed, the contract must show an intent to benefit the third party, which was absent here. At most, the wife was an incidental beneficiary, which does not confer enforceable rights (para 4).
• The wife’s claim of prima facie tort failed because there was no evidence of intent to injure her, a necessary element of the claim. Fleet demonstrated entitlement to summary judgment, and the wife failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact (para 5).
• The court found that the wife’s remaining claims were resolved by the determination that she was neither a party to nor a third-party beneficiary of the agreement. Any remedy available to her would have to be pursued against her ex-husband under the indemnity provision of the divorce decree (paras 6-7).