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

• Rhino Roofing, Inc. (Rhino Roofing) was involved in a legal dispute with Leticia Enriquez over allegations of unfair practices related to a roofing contract. The district court found Rhino Roofing in violation of the New Mexico Unfair Practices Act (UPA) due to making false or misleading statements in attempts to collect a debt and awarded Enriquez treble damages based on breach of contract damages, not directly resulting from the UPA violations.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff/Counterdefendant-Appellant (Rhino Roofing): Contended that the district court improperly assessed the amount of actual damages Enriquez incurred as a result of Rhino Roofing’s UPA violations.
• Defendant/Counterplaintiff-Appellee (Leticia Enriquez): Argued that the district court’s award of damages should be affirmed because Rhino Roofing violated the UPA by failing to deliver the quality or quantity of goods or services contracted for and by making false or misleading statements in its attempts to collect a debt.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court improperly assessed the amount of actual damages Enriquez incurred as a result of Rhino Roofing’s UPA violations.
• Whether Rhino Roofing’s actions constituted additional violations of the UPA beyond those identified by the district court.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s award of UPA damages in the amount of $7,500 trebled to $22,500 and remanded with instructions to reassess the amount of damages consistent with the opinion.

Reasons

• HENDERSON, Judge, with DUFFY, Judge, and BUSTAMANTE, Judge, concurring: The Court found that the district court erred in assessing actual damages for violations of the UPA because Enriquez did not incur actual damages as a result of Rhino Roofing’s attempts to collect a debt. The damages awarded were based on breach of contract, not directly resulting from UPA violations, and thus Enriquez was only entitled to statutory damages of $100 (paras 1-4). The Court also rejected Enriquez’s contention that Rhino Roofing violated the UPA by failing to provide the contracted-for service, as there was no evidence or finding that Rhino Roofing knowingly made a false or misleading statement in connection with the solicitation of the contract to repair Enriquez’s roof (paras 5-8). Finally, the Court declined to affirm the district court’s order on the grounds of punitive damages under contract law or the UPA, stating that punitive damages are not permissible under UPA beyond treble damages for willful misconduct, and the issue of punitive damages for breach of contract requires a fact-dependent analysis not addressed by the district court (paras 9-14).