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 appellant, a medical doctor, entered into a settlement agreement with the New Mexico Medical Board (NMMB) on June 27, 2008, agreeing to surrender his medical license. The appellant later filed a complaint for declaratory judgment on May 16, 2013, seeking to have the settlement agreement declared void and unenforceable due to fraud, duress, lack of consideration, and failure to adequately state the agreement between the parties. The appellant claimed he was undergoing severe medical problems at the time of signing and did not understand the agreement's meaning, believing he could continue consulting with patients based on representations made by the NMMB's chief administrative prosecutor. The appellant also claimed undue pressure to sign the agreement and rescinded the agreement three days after its execution (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: Argued that the complaint for declaratory judgment was not barred by the statute of limitations, asserting the action was based on a written contract subject to a six-year statute of limitations. Claimed the settlement agreement was void due to fraud, duress, lack of consideration, and failure to adequately state the agreement. Also argued for the validity of rescinding the agreement by letter and claimed the contract was illegal and void ab initio as it violated the New Mexico Constitution (paras 2, 7).
• Defendant-Appellee (NMMB): [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the appellant's complaint for declaratory judgment was barred by the statute of limitations.
• Whether the settlement agreement could be declared void and unenforceable due to fraud, duress, lack of consideration, and failure to adequately state the agreement between the parties.

Disposition

• The district court's dismissal of the appellant's complaint for declaratory judgment was affirmed. The appellant's motions to amend the docketing statement were denied (para 1).

Reasons

• TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge (CYNTHIA A. FRY, Judge, J. MILES HANISEE, Judge concurring): The court found the appellant's action was governed by the four-year statute of limitations for actions not founded upon a written contract, as the appellant's complaint did not allege breach of the settlement agreement but sought to declare the agreement void based on alleged defects in formation. The court agreed with the district court's determination that the action was untimely. The appellant's argument for valid rescission of the settlement agreement and the claim that the contract was illegal and void ab initio were not addressed due to not being raised in the district court. The motion to amend the docketing statement to raise the issue of vindictive prosecution was denied as it was not preserved for appeal (paras 5-9).