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 dispute involves Angel Fire Resort Operations, L.L.C. (the Resort), and Truett L. Scarborough (Plaintiff), over the obligation to pay annual assessment fees for the maintenance of amenities by the Plaintiff, who owns Lots 2, 3, and 4 in the Monte Verde “V” Subdivision Unit 1, Colfax County, New Mexico. The Resort claims that the Plaintiff is required to pay these fees, while the Plaintiff contends he is not obligated to do so (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff: Argued that he is not bound by any contract created by the confirmation of the Plan and Supplemental Declaration because he was not a creditor or a property owner in the bankruptcy case, and his lots are not affected. He further argued that the bankruptcy debtor and its predecessors did not develop the subdivision and that Monte Verde Subdivision is a unique property not subject to any recorded or implied covenants. Additionally, Plaintiff disputes the Resort’s res judicata claims (para 9).
• Defendant-Appellant (The Resort): Contended that the bankruptcy court’s Plan and the Supplemental Declaration apply to Plaintiff’s Monte Verde Subdivision lots, that Plaintiff’s claims regarding the violation of state law and lack of jurisdiction by the bankruptcy court lack merit, and that Plaintiff’s arguments are barred under the doctrine of res judicata (para 9).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in granting summary judgment to Plaintiff with respect to Monte Verde Subdivision Lots 2, 3, and 4 (para 9).
• Whether implied, but binding, contractual relationships concerning amenities and payment of assessment fees existed for Lots 2, 3, and 4 (para 10).

Disposition

• The district court’s order denying summary judgment to Plaintiff as to Monte Verde Subdivision Lots 3 is affirmed.
• The district court’s order denying summary judgment to the Resort as to Monte Verde Subdivision Lots 2 and 4 is reversed.
• The case is remanded to the district court for further proceedings as may be necessary consistent with this opinion (paras 25-26).

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals of New Mexico, with Judge M. Monica Zamora authoring the opinion, found that there remain facts to be developed and genuine issues of material fact to be resolved regarding whether there were implied covenants or implied negative easements that were developed and applied to Lot 3. The court noted that the Resort repeatedly billed the Plaintiff for past-due assessments and that “property owners” are described in the bankruptcy documents as owners entitled to use amenities upon payment of the annual required assessment. However, for Lots 2 and 4, the court held that summary judgment should have been granted to the Resort, as the owners of Lots 2 and 4, at the time of the bankruptcy, were given notice of the proceedings and an opportunity to cast their vote on the reorganization plan, which included a covenant running with the land and a negative easement that required the Resort to preserve the amenities and obligated property owners to pay annual assessments. The court specifically remanded issues regarding whether the Resort waived the right to include Monte Verde Subdivision Lot 3 in the negative easement and whether the bankruptcy court lacked jurisdiction to adopt the Plan that imposed covenants on Monte Verde Subdivision Lot 3 (paras 11-24).