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

• Petitioners, licensed real estate brokers, had their licenses revoked and were fined by the New Mexico Real Estate Commission (NMREC) for making false statements and acting in bad faith in negotiations. The disciplinary action was based on allegations from a 2011 letter, which NMREC became aware of in 2014 through a forwarded email from the New Mexico Attorney General’s Office. Petitioners argued that the disciplinary action was time-barred under the Uniform Licensing Act (ULA), which prohibits actions more than two years after the discovery of the conduct in question (paras 2-4).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Petitioners: Argued that the statute of limitations under the ULA barred NMREC from taking disciplinary action against them and contended that substantial evidence did not support NMREC’s disciplinary action (para 1).
• NMREC: Challenged the preservation of Petitioners' time-barred argument on appeal and contended that the statute of limitations began when the email detailing the allegations was opened and processed, not when it was received (paras 5, 18-23).

Legal Issues

• Whether the disciplinary action brought by NMREC was barred by the statute of limitations under the ULA (para 1).
• Whether NMREC discovered the conduct that would be the basis for the action before or after July 8, 2014, thus affecting the applicability of the statute of limitations (para 10).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals concluded that the disciplinary action brought by NMREC was barred by the statute of limitations, reversing and vacating the district court’s judgment in favor of NMREC (para 25).

Reasons

• The Court, per Judge Gerald E. Baca, with Chief Judge J. Miles Hanisee and Judge Zachary A. Ives concurring, held that the discovery rule applies to the ULA, meaning the statute of limitations begins when a licensing board discovered or with reasonable diligence should have discovered that a disciplinary action exists. The Court found that NMREC should have discovered the conduct based on an email received on July 2, 2014, making the disciplinary action initiated on July 8, 2016, outside the two-year limitation period. The Court rejected NMREC’s argument that the statute of limitations began when the email was opened and processed, emphasizing that allowing NMREC to define the parameters of discovery would undermine the purpose of a statute of limitations. The Court concluded that NMREC’s action against Petitioners was time-barred, reversing the district court’s judgment and vacating the actions against Petitioners as barred by the statute of limitations (paras 5-24).