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, after purchasing a home in Elephant Butte, New Mexico, discovered construction defects that were not disclosed prior to the sale. Consequently, the plaintiff sued the seller, the seller’s broker, and her own brokers for their failure to disclose their alleged knowledge of the defects (para 2).

Procedural History

• District Court of Sierra County: Granted the purchaser’s brokers summary judgment and refused to award the brokers their attorney fees, as their defense had been provided by their insurer (para 1).

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellant/Cross-Appellee: Argued that the defendants failed to disclose known defects in the home purchased.
• Defendants-Appellees/Cross-Appellants (Campbell/DLR): Sought attorney fees in accordance with the purchase agreement after being granted summary judgment, arguing that the agreement entitled the prevailing party, including brokers, to reasonable attorney fees and court costs (para 3).
• Defendant-Appellee (Susan Lowe): [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in refusing to award attorney fees to the purchaser’s brokers, despite the purchase agreement's provision for the award of such fees to the prevailing party (para 1).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's decision, concluding that the district court erroneously failed to enforce the attorney fees provision of the purchase agreement (para 1).

Reasons

• Per Cynthia A. Fry, J. (Michael D. Bustamante, J., and J. Miles Hanisee, J., concurring): The district court correctly interpreted the purchase agreement’s fee provision as applicable to Campbell/DLR as the selling brokers and intended beneficiaries. However, it erred by not awarding attorney fees due to the defense being provided by an insurer, which was not a stipulated exception in the agreement. The court's duty was to interpret the contract as made by the parties without altering it. The Oregon case, Domingo v. Anderson, was cited as persuasive for not excluding attorney fee awards because they were paid by a third party. The appellate court found no equitable reason to not enforce the agreement's attorney fees provision and remanded for the determination of a reasonable fee award (paras 7-12).