Bales v. Titan Development
A-1-CA-36104
| N.M. Ct. App. | Oct 25, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Vaden Bales resigned on February 15, 2008; his final payday was February 29, 2008, paid on March 1, 2008.
- Plaintiff alleges defendants (Titan entities and individuals) failed to fully compensate him on that final payday, constituting a breach.
- Plaintiff filed suit on January 15, 2013, alleging breach based on an unwritten contract.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the claim was time-barred by the four-year statute of limitations for unwritten contracts.
- Plaintiff argued defendants made promises acknowledging debt after his resignation and that defendants first indicated possible nonpayment in May 2010, which he contends tolled or estopped the limitations period.
- The district court granted summary judgment for defendants; the Court of Appeals affirms, holding the suit was filed after the limitations period and that vague post-resignation promises did not toll or revive the limitations period.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the claim is time-barred under the 4-year statute for unwritten contracts | Bales contends defendants acknowledged the debt post-resignation and first raised nonpayment in May 2010, which tolled or equitably estops the limitations defense | The claim accrued on March 1, 2008 (final payday); the four-year limitations expired March 1, 2012, so the Jan. 15, 2013 suit is barred | Held for defendants: suit is time-barred; filed after limitations period expired |
| Whether vague promises to pay after breach can revive or toll the statute of limitations | Bales asserts defendants’ promises constituted new promises/acknowledgment sufficient to toll or estop | Defendants argue promises were vague and insufficient to restart the limitations clock | Held: vague post-breach promises do not suspend or restart the statute; plaintiff’s suit remains untimely |
Key Cases Cited
- Self v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 970 P.2d 582 (N.M. 1998) (summary judgment standard and de novo review)
- Romero v. Philip Morris Inc., 242 P.3d 280 (N.M. 2010) (view facts favoring nonmoving party on summary judgment)
- Vill. of Angel Fire v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs of Colfax Cnty., 242 P.3d 371 (N.M. Ct. App. 2010) (mere promise of payment after breach does not stop statute of limitations)
- Petranovich v. Frkovich, 164 P.2d 386 (N.M. 1945) (a new promise does not suspend a not-yet-run statute of limitations)