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-Appellant and the Defendants-Appellees had a close, long-term personal friendship. The Plaintiff provided services related to a real estate transaction but did not seek immediate payment, relying instead on the Defendants' promise to pay at a later date. The Plaintiff later sought to recover payment, alleging a special relationship and fraudulent concealment by the Defendants.
Procedural History
- District Court of Sandoval County: Entered summary judgment in favor of the Defendants-Appellees. (headnotes)
Parties' Submissions
- Appellant: Argued that a special relationship existed between the parties due to their close personal friendship, which created a duty on the part of the Defendants. Additionally, the Appellant claimed fraudulent concealment by the Defendants, which should toll the statute of limitations.
- Appellees: [Not applicable or not found]
Legal Issues
- Did the close personal friendship between the parties create a special relationship imposing a duty on the Defendants?
- Was there evidence of fraudulent concealment sufficient to toll the statute of limitations?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's summary judgment in favor of the Defendants-Appellees.
Reasons
Per Castillo J. (Bustamante and Vigil JJ. concurring):
The Court found that the Appellant failed to cite any legal authority establishing a duty arising from the alleged special relationship between the parties. In the absence of such authority, the Court assumed no such duty exists.
The Court also determined that there was no evidence of fraudulent concealment. The Appellant was aware of the real estate transaction's closure and chose not to seek payment within the statute of limitations period, relying instead on the Defendants' promise to pay later. The agreement to delay payment did not toll the statute of limitations.
For these reasons, the Court affirmed the District Court's decision.