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 invested in a tax shelter program involving cattle feeding, facilitated by the Defendant, who acted as an intermediary between the Plaintiff and the program's seller. The Plaintiff suffered significant financial losses when the investment failed, and the Defendant received a referral fee from the seller. The Plaintiff alleged violations of securities laws, fraud, and negligence (paras 2-7).

Procedural History

• District Court, December 4, 1991: The court found the Defendant liable for damages as a salesman or agent of an unregistered security and for negligence. The Plaintiff was awarded $73,078.43 in damages, plus interest, costs, and attorney's fees. The court also granted a stay of execution of the judgment for six months (paras 9-11).

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant: Argued that he was not a salesman or agent of the seller, was not an unregistered investment adviser, and was not negligent. He claimed his role was limited to assisting the Plaintiff and his father in finding a tax shelter and that imposing liability on him was unfair (paras 13, 17).
• Plaintiff: Contended that the Defendant acted as a salesman or agent of the seller, facilitated the investment, and received compensation for the referral. The Plaintiff also argued that the trial court abused its discretion in granting the stay of execution without requiring a bond (paras 14, 21, 24).

Legal Issues

• Was the Defendant a salesman or agent of the seller of an unregistered security under the Securities Act?
• Did the trial court abuse its discretion in granting a stay of execution of the judgment without requiring a bond?

Disposition

• The Supreme Court of New Mexico affirmed the trial court's finding that the Defendant was a salesman or agent of the seller of an unregistered security (para 22).
• The court upheld the stay of execution but remanded for reconsideration of its duration and whether a bond should be required (paras 34-35).

Reasons

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

• The court found substantial evidence supporting the trial court's determination that the Defendant acted as a salesman or agent of the seller. The Defendant introduced the Plaintiff to the program, facilitated the investment, and received a referral fee, which satisfied the statutory definition of a salesman or agent under the Securities Act (paras 15-22).
• The court emphasized that appellate courts defer to trial courts' factual findings if supported by substantial evidence and do not reweigh evidence or resolve conflicting testimony (paras 15-16).
• On the issue of the stay, the court held that trial courts have discretion to grant stays of execution to prevent injustice, even without requiring a bond, but such stays should not be indefinite. The trial court's initial six-month stay was reasonable, but the court remanded for reconsideration of the stay's duration and whether a bond should now be required to protect the Plaintiff's interests (paras 27-34).