Burrell v. Shipton
36,046
| N.M. Ct. App. | Apr 18, 2017Background
- Plaintiff James A. Burrell (d/b/a American Legends Construction, "Builder") sued Defendant Shirley Mae Shipton ("Homeowner"); Homeowner appealed an adverse judgment.
- The district court adopted findings and conclusions that concluded Homeowner waived certain rights; Builder had not affirmatively pleaded waiver in its pleadings.
- On appeal, this Court issued a notice of proposed summary disposition proposing to vacate and remand because the district court’s findings and conclusions failed to address significant issues and were insufficient for meaningful review.
- Homeowner opposed vacatur and asked for reversal on the merits, arguing the record plainly shows waiver was improper; Builder did not respond to the court’s notice.
- The Court of Appeals concluded the district court’s findings were inadequate — especially regarding waiver, and the complete failure to address Homeowner’s accord and satisfaction argument and her counterclaims — and thus vacated the judgment and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Burrell) | Defendant's Argument (Shipton) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court properly concluded Homeowner waived her rights | Court permissibly relied on facts indicating waiver; waiver can be considered even if not pleaded | Waiver was not properly established; court erred as a matter of law and should be reversed | Court did not resolve the merits; findings insufficient to allow appellate review — vacated and remanded for additional findings |
| Whether failure to plead waiver as an affirmative defense barred consideration of waiver | Waiver need not be affirmatively pleaded if opposing party had fair notice; pleadings may be conformed to evidence | Argues lack of pleading prevents reliance on waiver | Court noted waiver may be considered without formal pleading but remanded because the factual and legal basis for applying waiver was unclear in the findings |
| Whether doctrines analogous to waiver (ratification, acquiescence) were properly applied | District court could apply waiver-related doctrines based on the evidence | Opposes application without clear findings and legal basis | Court declined to affirm given inadequate findings; remand required to clarify any application of those doctrines |
| Whether the district court adjudicated Homeowner’s accord and satisfaction defense and her counterclaims | Builder proceeded on primary claim; court’s findings did not need to address all defenses explicitly | Homeowner argued her accord and satisfaction defense and counterclaims were ignored in findings | Court found the complete failure to address accord and satisfaction and counterclaims is an insurmountable impediment to review; vacated and remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller v. Bank of Am., N.A., 352 P.3d 1162 (N.M. 2015) (district court must make findings of essential facts sufficient for appellate review)
- Brannock v. Brannock, 722 P.2d 667 (N.M. Ct. App. 1985) (waiver need not be affirmatively pleaded where opposing party had fair notice)
- Stewart v. Lucero, 918 P.2d 1 (N.M. 1996) (discussing waiver, ratification, and acquiescence doctrines in contract disputes)
- Toynbee v. Mimbres Mem’l Nursing Home, 833 P.2d 1204 (N.M. Ct. App. 1992) (remand appropriate where findings are ambiguous or insufficient)
- Foutz v. Foutz, 798 P.2d 592 (N.M. Ct. App. 1990) (findings must enable appellate court to conduct meaningful review; verbatim adoption of proposed findings may be inadequate)
- Tartaglia v. Hodges, 10 P.3d 176 (N.M. Ct. App. 2000) (presumption of correctness for district court findings on bench trial review)