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 case concerns a dispute over a residential purchase agreement. The Buyer made an offer to purchase a property owned by the Seller and his former wife, which was signed and returned by the Owners after the offer's expiration, constituting a counteroffer. The Buyer proceeded with actions such as delivering an earnest-money deposit, arranging inspections, and securing financing, which she argued constituted acceptance of the counteroffer through performance (paras 2-3, 6).

Procedural History

• District Court of Santa Fe County: Granted summary judgment in favor of the Buyer, finding the purchase agreement enforceable and compelling arbitration under its terms.

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Seller): Argued that the counteroffer required written acceptance by the Buyer, as per the terms of the agreement, and that the Buyer's actions did not constitute valid acceptance. The Seller also contended procedural defects in the Buyer's motion for summary judgment and challenged the admissibility of certain affidavits (paras 4, 7, 10, 12).
• Appellee (Buyer): Asserted that her performance, including delivering the earnest-money deposit, arranging inspections, and appearing for closing, constituted acceptance of the counteroffer. She argued that the agreement did not require written acceptance and that the Seller had actual notice of her acceptance through performance (paras 6-8).

Legal Issues

• Did the Buyer's actions constitute valid acceptance of the Seller's counteroffer, thereby forming a binding contract?
• Was written acceptance required under the terms of the agreement?
• Were there procedural defects in the Buyer's motion for summary judgment?

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's order of summary judgment in favor of the Buyer (para 13).

Reasons

Per Bustamante J. (Donnelly and Hartz JJ. concurring):

• The Court held that the Buyer's actions, including delivering the earnest-money deposit, arranging inspections, securing financing, and appearing for closing, constituted acceptance of the counteroffer through performance. The agreement did not specify that acceptance had to be in writing, and the Seller had actual notice of the Buyer's acceptance (paras 4-8).
• The Court rejected the Seller's argument that the statute of frauds required written acceptance, finding that the agreement satisfied the statute's requirements as it was signed by the Seller and contained all essential terms (para 5).
• The Court dismissed the Seller's procedural objections, noting that the Buyer's filings sufficiently constituted a cross-motion for summary judgment and that the Seller failed to preserve certain procedural issues for appeal (paras 10-12).
• The Court denied the Seller's motion for rehearing, reiterating that the agreement did not require written acceptance by the Buyer and that the Seller's reliance on precedent was misplaced (paras 15-18).