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

• A complaint was filed with the New Mexico Real Estate Commission (NMREC) against Joyce R. Barger, a licensed real estate broker, alleging ethical violations in connection with a real estate contract from February 2000. The NMREC discovered the conduct and filed a notice of contemplated action (NCA) against Barger in May 2010, threatening revocation of her license unless the allegations were rebutted at a formal hearing (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• District Court of Bernalillo County: Found that the NMREC improperly filed the NCA because the statute of limitations had expired (para 5).

Parties' Submissions

• NMREC: Argued that the statute of limitations should be triggered by the licensing board's discovery of the conduct, not the complainant's discovery, to avoid absurd results and to align with the purpose of protecting the public from unethical practices by licensees (paras 6, 16-17).
• Barger: Contended that the district court's interpretation was correct, asserting that the statute of limitations was intended to protect the licensee's property rights and should be triggered by the complainant's discovery of the conduct (para 6).

Legal Issues

• Whether the two-year statute of limitations under the 1993 version of the Uniform Licensing Act begins to run when the licensing board discovers the conduct giving rise to disciplinary action or when the complainant discovers the conduct (para 1).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's judgment, holding that the NMREC's action against Barger is not time-barred and remanded the matter to the NMREC for further proceedings (para 23).

Reasons

• The Court, with an opinion by Judge Cynthia A. Fry and concurrence by Chief Judge Celia Foy Castillo and Judge James J. Wechsler, reasoned that the statute of limitations is triggered by the licensing board's discovery of the conduct. This interpretation aligns with the purpose of the Uniform Licensing Act to protect the public by enforcing professional standards and reflects the legislative intent to balance public protection with the licensee's property rights. The Court found the statute ambiguous and looked to the legislative history and the practical implications of the statute's interpretation. The 2003 amendment to the statute, which specified that the limitations period is triggered by the board's discovery, was seen as clarifying existing law rather than changing it. The Court also considered the purposes served by statutes of limitations, emphasizing fairness and the encouragement of promptness in instituting claims (paras 7-22).