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 Plaintiff-Appellant, as the personal representative of her mother's estate, engaged the Defendant-Appellee, an art appraiser and dealer, to evaluate her mother's property. Instead of providing appraisal services, the Defendant purchased two paintings from the Plaintiff for $4,500, which he subsequently sold for $35,000. These paintings were later sold at auction for approximately $600,000. Upon discovering the sale price, the Plaintiff filed suit against the Defendant for negligent misrepresentation and violation of the Unfair Practices Act (UPA), among other causes of action (paras 1, 3-9).

Procedural History

• District Court of Bernalillo County: After a trial, the Plaintiff was awarded $14,600 following a reduction for comparative negligence. The Plaintiff's motion for additur was denied (para 1).

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellant: Argued that the Defendant committed negligent misrepresentation and violated the UPA by purchasing the paintings at a price far below their value without disclosing his knowledge of their worth (paras 8-9).
• Defendant-Appellee: Contended that there was no misrepresentation and that the UPA did not apply as the transaction was not a sale of goods or services from him to the Plaintiff (paras 14, 20).

Legal Issues

• Whether the UPA allows a seller of goods to bring a cause of action against the purchaser under the given circumstances (para 2).
• If comparative negligence is a valid defense to negligent misrepresentation and whether it should have been included in the pretrial order before jury instruction (para 2).
• Whether the district court erred in denying the Plaintiff's motion for additur (para 2).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decisions on all issues raised by the Plaintiff (para 39).

Reasons

• CELIA FOY CASTILLO, Chief Judge: Concluded that the UPA claim was correctly dismissed as the Plaintiff did not purchase any services from the Defendant, and thus, the transaction did not fall under the UPA's purview. The Court also held that comparative negligence is a valid defense to negligent misrepresentation, aligning with the majority view that allows for the apportionment of liability in such cases. Lastly, the Court found no error in the denial of the motion for additur, as the jury's award was not inconsistent with the evidence presented (paras 14-38).
  RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge (dissenting): Dissented on the issue of comparative negligence in negligent misrepresentation claims, advocating for the minority view that justified reliance on a misrepresentation should not be subject to comparative negligence analysis. Judge Kennedy argued that the Plaintiff was justified in her reliance on the Defendant's expertise and professional standing, and thus, the comparative negligence instruction to the jury was erroneous (paras 41-42).