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 involves a dispute over a contract for the sale of real estate between the Plaintiffs, who were the sellers, and the Defendant, who was the buyer. The district court rescinded the contract, quieted title in favor of the Plaintiffs, and awarded liquidated damages based on amounts that were past-due under the contract.

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Doña Ana County, Manuel I. Arrieta, District Judge.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the award of both damages and rescission constituted an impermissible double recovery, contested the district court's failure to credit his testimony regarding misrepresentations about the quantity of land, argued that the forfeiture should shock the court's conscience, and contended that the district court erred in awarding attorney fees pursuant to the contract.
• Plaintiffs-Appellees: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the award of both damages and rescission constitutes an impermissible double recovery.
• Whether the district court erred by not crediting the Defendant's testimony regarding misrepresentations about the quantity of land.
• Whether the forfeiture at issue should shock the court's conscience.
• Whether the district court erred in awarding attorney fees pursuant to the contract.

Disposition

• The judgment entered by the district court was affirmed in its entirety.

Reasons

• JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge (M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge, J. MILES HANISEE, Judge concurring):
  Regarding the double recovery issue, the court found that the damages awarded did not involve any acceleration of payments under the contract but consisted solely of money due prior to the rescission of the contract, thus not constituting expectancy damages prohibited by Buckingham v. Ryan (paras 2).
  On the issue of misrepresentations about the quantity of land, the court held that the credibility of an interested witness is always for the trier of fact to assess and that any question regarding the amount of land was mooted by the rescission of the contract (para 3).
  Concerning the argument that the forfeiture should shock the court's conscience, the court was not persuaded, noting that the Defendant had been in possession of the property for five years and made no attempt to show that the amounts paid exceeded the value of that possession (para 6).
  On the awarding of attorney fees, the court found no error in the district court’s interpretation of the attorney fee provision in the contract, which allowed for the recovery of reasonable attorneys fees and costs by the prevailing party (para 7-8).