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 case involves a dispute between the plaintiffs, David and Corinne Fogelson, and the defendants, Eric Wallace and Mark Bozzone, regarding a contract for the construction of a new home in Bernalillo, New Mexico. The Fogelsons entered into a purchase agreement with Wallen Development, Inc., for the construction and purchase of the home. However, Wallen ceased operations before completing the construction, leading to the Fogelsons' claims against Wallace and Bozzone for various intentional torts and other claims related to the unfinished home construction (paras 1, 8-10).

Procedural History

• District Court: The district court ruled that Wallace and Bozzone were jointly and severally liable for intentional torts, including prima facie tort, intentional interference with contractual relations, and civil conspiracy. It dismissed various claims, including unfair trade practices against both appellants and conversion against Bozzone (para 1).

Parties' Submissions

• Appellants (Wallace and Bozzone): Argued that the doctrines of res judicata or collateral estoppel barred the Fogelsons' claims against them. Bozzone also contended that the district court erred in not dismissing the claim of prima facie tort and in ruling him liable for intentional interference with contractual relations due to no existing duty between him and the Fogelsons (paras 2-3).
• Appellees (Fogelsons): Argued against the application of res judicata, stating Bozzone waived it by not raising it at trial. They also appealed the district court’s dismissal of their unfair trade practices claim and conversion claim against Bozzone (paras 2-6).

Legal Issues

• Whether the doctrines of res judicata or collateral estoppel barred the Fogelsons' claims against Wallace and Bozzone.
• Whether the district court erred in dismissing the Fogelsons' unfair trade practices claim and conversion claim against Bozzone.
• Whether substantial evidence supported the district court's ruling that Bozzone was liable for intentional interference with contractual relations, prima facie tort, and civil conspiracy (paras 2-6).

Disposition

• The court reversed the district court’s judgment against Wallace based on res judicata.
• The court reversed the district court’s judgment against Bozzone on claims of prima facie tort, intentional interference with contractual relations, and civil conspiracy due to insufficient evidence.
• The court reversed the district court's dismissal of the Fogelsons' unfair trade practices claim against Bozzone and remanded for additional proceedings, but upheld the dismissal of the conversion claim against Bozzone (paras 7, 54, 73).

Reasons

• The court found that the requirements for res judicata were met for Wallace, thus barring the Fogelsons' claims against him. For Bozzone, the court determined that the Fogelsons made fact-specific allegations that negated the applicability of Wallace’s res judicata argument to Bozzone. The court also found that substantial evidence did not support the district court’s ruling on the claims against Bozzone for intentional interference with contractual relations, prima facie tort, and civil conspiracy. Regarding the unfair trade practices claim, the court reversed the dismissal as a matter of law and remanded for further proceedings concerning Bozzone only, while it found the dismissal of the conversion claim against Bozzone to be supported by substantial evidence (paras 2-73).