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 retained the Defendant to raise $40 million in charitable donations by January 31, 2003, under a contract for which the Plaintiff paid nearly $1 million. The Defendant failed to meet the fundraising target, leading the Plaintiff to sue for breach of contract and other claims. A settlement agreement was reached in 2006, requiring the Defendant to pay $425,000 in installments, backed by a promissory note and a mortgage on the Defendant's Santa Fe property. Disputes arose over the terms of the agreement, particularly regarding retirement account withdrawals and the mortgage (paras 1, 5-12).
Procedural History
- District Court, September 2006: Referred the case to a settlement conference, resulting in a settlement agreement (para 6).
- District Court, May 7, 2007: Held a hearing on the Plaintiff's motion to enforce the settlement agreement, finding the agreement enforceable but requiring clarifications on certain provisions (paras 18-20).
- District Court, Post-May 2007: Issued a final order partially granting the Plaintiff's motion to enforce the settlement agreement but allowing foreclosure proceedings against the Santa Fe property (paras 21-22).
Parties' Submissions
- Plaintiff-Appellant: Argued that the district court erred by failing to enforce the retirement-related provisions of the settlement agreement, which were intended to prevent default and provide security for the debt (paras 22-23).
- Defendant-Appellee: Objected to the terms of the settlement agreement, including the mortgage on the Santa Fe property, the payment schedule, and the retirement-related provisions, claiming they were inconsistent with the original agreement (paras 10-12, 16).
Legal Issues
- Did the district court err in failing to enforce the retirement-related provisions of the settlement agreement?
- Was the settlement agreement valid and enforceable under New Mexico law?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings to enforce the settlement agreement, including the retirement-related provisions (para 24).
Reasons
Per Vigil J. (Castillo and Garcia JJ. concurring):
The Court emphasized that settlement agreements are contracts and must be enforced as written unless there is a compelling basis to set them aside, such as fraud or unconscionability, which was not present in this case. The district court erred by failing to enforce the retirement-related provisions, which were integral to the settlement agreement and intended to prevent default. The Court noted that the district court improperly rewrote the agreement by ignoring these provisions, leaving the Plaintiff without a remedy. The case was remanded to calculate payments subject to specific performance and address the Defendant's refusal to sign the mortgage (paras 23-24).