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 hired the Defendant to perform roofing work on two properties. The Defendant was not a licensed contractor at the time the work was undertaken. The Plaintiff later sought legal action, alleging that the Defendant was barred from seeking or retaining compensation for the work under the Construction Industries Licensing Act (the Act), which requires contractors to be licensed at the time of performing such work.

Procedural History

• District Court, Sierra County: The court granted summary judgment in favor of the Plaintiff, dismissing the Defendants’ counterclaims with prejudice.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendants: Argued that summary judgment was improper because the Plaintiff failed to submit affidavits supporting the motion or rebutting the Defendants’ affidavits. They also contended that the work performed was exempt under Section 60-13-3(D)(18) of the Act, as it involved non-structural repairs to address leaks.
• Plaintiff: Asserted that the Defendant was not licensed at the time of the roofing work, which is covered by the Act and not exempt under Section 60-13-3(D)(18). The Plaintiff argued that affidavits were unnecessary to establish a prima facie case for summary judgment.

Legal Issues

• Was the Defendant barred from seeking or retaining compensation for roofing work under the Construction Industries Licensing Act due to the lack of a contractor’s license at the time of the work?
• Did the Plaintiff need to submit affidavits to support the motion for summary judgment?
• Does the exemption under Section 60-13-3(D)(18) of the Act apply to the roofing work performed by the Defendant?

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of the Plaintiff and dismissing the Defendants’ counterclaims with prejudice.

Reasons

Per Castillo J. (Fry C.J. and Vigil J. concurring):

The Court held that summary judgment was appropriate because the Defendant was not licensed at the time the roofing work was performed, as required by Section 60-13-30(A) of the Act. The Act bars unlicensed contractors from seeking or retaining compensation for work that requires a license.

The Court rejected the Defendants’ argument that affidavits were necessary to support the Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. Under Rule 1-056(A) NMRA, a party may move for summary judgment without submitting affidavits, as long as the movant makes a prima facie case. The Plaintiff satisfied this burden by citing the Act and demonstrating that the Defendant was unlicensed at the time of the work, a fact admitted by the Defendants.

The Court also dismissed the Defendants’ claim that the work was exempt under Section 60-13-3(D)(18) of the Act. The exemption applies only to short-term depreciable improvements not covered by building codes. Roofing work, however, is explicitly covered by the New Mexico Building Code, making the exemption inapplicable.

The Defendants’ affidavits, which described the nature of the work and alleged that it was non-structural, were deemed insufficient to create a material issue of fact. The Court emphasized that legal conclusions inconsistent with the Act’s language cannot preclude summary judgment.