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 City of Tucumcari sold water to RAD Water Users Cooperative under a contract that included a fixed rate for a certain period, after which the rate was to be determined annually based on specific cost factors. In 2012, Tucumcari proposed a rate increase, which RAD refused to pay, leading to a lawsuit by Tucumcari seeking a declaratory judgment on the rate increase's justification, alleging RAD's breach of contract, and requesting to set aside a 1987 decision that provided a formula for computing water prices (paras 1-4).

Procedural History

• District Court of Quay County, Gerald E. Baca, District Judge: Found RAD breached the contract, Tucumcari’s 2012-2014 water prices were reasonable, awarded prejudgment and postjudgment interest, and allowed Tucumcari to set future rates without reference to the 1987 Decision (para 1).

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellee (City of Tucumcari): Argued the proposed rate increase was justified under the contract, RAD was in breach of the contract, and sought to set aside the 1987 Decision regarding water price computation (para 1).
• Defendant-Appellant (RAD Water Users Cooperative): Contended the district court erred in finding the contract was terminated, in not requiring audited financial statements for rate computation, in failing to enforce efficient operation of the water delivery system, in allowing 2012 rates based on 2010 data, in admitting expert testimony, in not applying a 4% increase similar to other customers, and in awarding prejudgment and postjudgment interest (para 1).

Legal Issues

• Whether RAD's refusal to pay the increased water rate constituted a material breach of the contract.
• Whether Tucumcari's billed rates for 2012-2014 were reasonable.
• Whether the admission of Olga Morales as an expert witness was reversible error.
• Whether the district court erred in not applying the terms of a city ordinance to RAD.
• Whether the awards of prejudgment and postjudgment interest were abuses of discretion (paras 6-18).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision (para 19).

Reasons

• The Court found substantial evidence supported the district court's finding that RAD materially breached the contract by not paying the increased rates, which excused Tucumcari from further performance under the contract (paras 6-9).
  The Court held that Tucumcari's billed rates were reasonable, supported by evidence, including expert testimony, and that RAD's arguments against the rates were either underdeveloped or unsupported by the evidence (paras 10-12).
  The Court determined that the admission of Olga Morales as an expert witness was not reversible error due to RAD's failure to develop an argument against it (para 13).
  The Court agreed with the district court that the city ordinance did not apply to RAD, thus not requiring its terms to be applied to RAD (para 14).
  The Court found no abuse of discretion in the awards of prejudgment and postjudgment interest, affirming the district court's discretion under the relevant statutes (paras 15-18).