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 plaintiffs, Samuel and Jane Parker, purchased a home that they allege was not built to the promised standards and had serious drainage issues. The home was built and sold by Jerome Maldonado, the sole officer and licensed contractor for J. Jacob Enterprises, Inc., and the qualifying broker for J. Jacob Realty, LLC. The property is located in the Wild Horse Mesa Subdivision, developed by David Harper and Placitas, Inc. After experiencing flooding, the Parkers initiated a lawsuit for misrepresentation, contract and warranty-related claims, and violations of the Unfair Practices Act (UPA).

Procedural History

• District Court of Sandoval County: Dismissed the UPA claims, awarded attorney fees under the UPA to Defendants, and after trial, limited the Parkers’ damages to the cost to cure the drainage problem, denying their motion for attorney fees.

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiffs-Appellants: Argued that the property was not built according to promised standards, had serious drainage issues, and that Defendants engaged in various forms of misrepresentation and violations of the UPA.
• Defendants-Appellees: Moved to dismiss the UPA claims, partly based on McElhannon v. Ford, and argued against the Parkers' claims for greater compensatory relief and their request for attorney fees.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in dismissing the UPA claims.
• Whether the award of attorney fees to Defendants under the UPA was appropriate.
• Whether the district court’s rulings on the Parkers’ claims for greater compensatory relief were correct.
• Whether the denial of the Parkers’ request for attorney fees was proper.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s award of attorney fees under the UPA but affirmed the district court's decisions on all other points.

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, per WRAY, J., with BOGARDUS, J., and IVES, J., concurring, held that:
  The district court properly dismissed the UPA claims as a matter of law, finding that the services provided by Defendants, which resulted in the sale of a completed house, did not stand apart from the completed realty, thus not constituting "goods or services" under the UPA (paras 5-8).
  The Parkers' UPA claims were not groundless as required by Section 57-12-10(C) to award attorney fees to Defendants. The Parkers had a reasonable basis for their claims, advocating for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law, making the award of attorney fees to Defendants an abuse of discretion (paras 12-13).
  The evidence supported the district court’s rejection of the Parkers’ claims for additional compensatory damages. The district court's findings were supported by substantial evidence, and the Parkers' arguments required an impermissible reweighing of evidence (paras 14-15).
  The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Parkers’ attorney fees request. The Parkers were not the prevailing party as they lost on a majority of their claims, and the judgment awarded was significantly less than what they requested (paras 16-19).