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

• Woodmont Paseo, LLC (Woodmont) entered into agreements in 2003 and 2007 with New Mexico Utilities, Inc. (NMUI), guaranteeing water and sewer services to a planned community in Albuquerque, New Mexico, in exchange for property and infrastructure contributions by Woodmont's predecessor. Before the 2007 amendment, the Albuquerque Bernalillo County Water Utility Authority (WUA) initiated a condemnation action against NMUI, resulting in NMUI's property being condemned for $60,000,000. Years later, the WUA and NMUI informed Woodmont that additional facilities, funded entirely by the developer, were required for water delivery, leading Woodmont to file a complaint for breach of contract and declaratory judgment against NMUI and its parent company, Southwest Water Co. (SWC) (paras 2-5).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Woodmont: Argued that NMUI and SWC breached the 2003 and 2007 agreements by failing to provide the agreed services and not assuming any costs for work required by the WUA. Woodmont also contended that SWC, as NMUI's parent company, is liable under the contracts (para 8).
• NMUI and SWC: Focused on whether Woodmont's claims are barred by the defense of impossibility and whether the condemnation judgment precludes Woodmont's request for breach of contract damages. They did not address whether Woodmont's complaint states claims for breach of contract and declaratory judgment (para 9).

Legal Issues

• Whether Woodmont's claims against NMUI and SWC for breach of contract and declaratory judgment are precluded by the defense of impossibility or by the stipulated condemnation judgment.
• Whether the district court erred in dismissing Woodmont's claims against NMUI and SWC (paras 7-9, 11-22).

Disposition

• The district court's order of dismissal as to NMUI is reversed.
• The district court's dismissal of the claims against SWC is affirmed (para 23).

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals found that Woodmont's complaint sufficiently stated a claim of breach of contract against NMUI, as it alleged a contractual obligation, a breach of that contract, and resulting damages. It also stated a claim for declaratory judgment under the Declaratory Judgment Act. The defense of impossibility was not established by NMUI, as the complaint and condemnation judgment did not support the necessary elements for this defense. The Court also concluded that the condemnation judgment did not preclude Woodmont's claim for damages, as the arguments focused on execution of judgment rather than the legal sufficiency of Woodmont's complaint. Finally, the Court affirmed the dismissal of claims against SWC, as Woodmont provided no legal authority to support its contention that SWC was liable for NMUI's alleged breach (paras 12-22).