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 purchased a home that began showing signs of structural failure due to improper subsurface preparation by the Defendant, Vista, who developed the subdivision on a former aggregate pit. This led to excessive post-construction movement of the structural slab and water infiltration causing soil settlement, affecting the home's foundations and load-bearing walls.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiffs: Argued that the home they purchased exhibited signs of structural failure due to improper subsurface preparation by Vista. They contended that the statute of repose did not bar their claims because "substantial completion" occurred when the home was occupied in 2004.
• Defendant (Vista): Contended that the Plaintiffs' claims were barred by the ten-year statute of repose, arguing that "substantial completion" occurred when the City issued a Certificate of Completion and Acceptance on February 26, 2002.

Legal Issues

• Whether the Plaintiffs' claims against Vista are barred by the ten-year statute of repose under NMSA 1978, § 37-1-27.
• What constitutes the "date of substantial completion" for the purposes of the statute of repose.

Disposition

• The district court's order granting summary judgment to Vista was affirmed.

Reasons

• The Court, led by Chief Judge Michael E. Vigil with Judges James J. Wechsler and M. Monica Zamora concurring, held that the infrastructure improvements made by Vista constituted "physical improvements to real property" under Section 37-1-27. The Court determined that the "date of substantial completion" was February 26, 2002, when the City issued a Certificate of Completion and Acceptance to Vista, making the Plaintiffs' December 7, 2012, complaint fall outside the ten-year statute of repose. The Court reasoned that the statute of repose was enacted to limit liability for construction-related claims to ten years after substantial completion of a project, and that the infrastructure improvements significantly enhanced the use and value of the property for its intended use as a subdivision. The Court also distinguished this case from Jacobo v. City of Albuquerque, noting that Vista was not a continuous owner of the property, thus making Jacobo inapplicable (paras 1-18).