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

• Roland Lucero, the Plaintiff, engaged in a real estate venture and suffered losses. He attributed these losses to the negligence of his attorney, Richard Sutten, the Defendant. The case revolves around whether the Defendant's alleged negligence was a proximate cause of the Plaintiff's losses.

Procedural History

• District Court of Bernalillo County, Victor S. Lopez, District Judge: Found that the Defendant's actions fell below the standard of care but were not the cause of the Plaintiff's losses.

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff: Argued that the Defendant's negligence was a proximate cause of his losses in the real estate venture.
• Defendant: Contended that there was no supportable finding that his alleged negligence caused the Plaintiff's losses.

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant's negligence was a proximate cause of the Plaintiff's losses in the real estate venture.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed the judgment entered against the Defendant, finding him thirty-five percent liable for the Plaintiff's losses, and remanded for entry of judgment in favor of the Defendant.

Reasons

• J. MILES HANISEE, Judge, with LINDA M. VANZI, Chief Judge, and STEPHEN G. FRENCH, Judge concurring, found that the Plaintiff failed to establish that the Defendant's negligence was a proximate cause of his losses. The original district court judge had found that the Defendant's actions fell below the standard of care but were not the cause of the Plaintiff's losses, a finding that was not challenged in the first appeal. On remand, the Plaintiff argued that causation had been established and sought only a determination of damages and percentage of fault. However, the Court of Appeals concluded that there was no supported finding or evidence of causation in the Plaintiff's favor on the essential element of causation. The remand court's judgment imposing liability on the Defendant was reversed due to the absence of a finding of causation (paras 1-12).