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 Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendants issued a certificate of occupancy for their cabin in 2000 despite the cabin being incomplete and lacking essential utilities such as electricity and water. The Plaintiffs claimed that the builder trespassed on neighboring property, leading to the discontinuation of power. They also faced difficulties in closing on the property and preventing foreclosure.

Procedural History

• District Court of San Miguel County: The court dismissed the Plaintiffs' complaint with prejudice, finding that the statute of limitations under the New Mexico Tort Claims Act had expired by 2006 at the latest.

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiffs-Appellants: Argued that the Defendants should be estopped from invoking the statute of limitations due to alleged fraud in issuing the certificate of occupancy. They also claimed they were denied due process when the district court failed to enforce a subpoena for records related to their property.
• Defendants-Appellees: Asserted that the Plaintiffs' claims were barred by the two-year statute of limitations under the New Mexico Tort Claims Act. They also argued that the subpoena was improperly directed to their attorney, who did not possess the requested records.

Legal Issues

• Whether the Plaintiffs' claims were barred by the two-year statute of limitations under the New Mexico Tort Claims Act.
• Whether the doctrine of equitable estoppel could prevent the Defendants from invoking the statute of limitations.
• Whether the Plaintiffs were denied due process due to the district court's handling of their subpoena for records.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's dismissal of the Plaintiffs' complaint.

Reasons

Per Wechsler J. (Sutin and Kennedy JJ. concurring):

• The court reviewed de novo the applicability of the statute of limitations and found that the Plaintiffs' claims were filed well beyond the two-year period provided by the New Mexico Tort Claims Act, which expired in 2006 at the latest.
• The Plaintiffs' argument for equitable estoppel was not preserved for appeal as it was not raised in the district court. Even if considered, the court found no evidence that the Defendants intended to deceive the Plaintiffs or that the Plaintiffs detrimentally relied on any misrepresentation.
• The court declined to address the due process claim regarding the subpoena, as it was not included in the Plaintiffs' docketing statement or properly raised on appeal. Additionally, the subpoena was directed to the Defendants' attorney, who did not possess the requested records, and the information sought would not have altered the outcome given the expiration of the statute of limitations.