Castillo v. Houvener
33,153
| N.M. Ct. App. | Feb 8, 2017Background
- Neighbor dispute over an easement led to litigation between Ted R. Castillo (plaintiff) and the Houvener defendants.
- Parties mediated and signed a written memorandum of understanding (MOU) describing how to determine easement boundaries and stating the MOU’s terms would be memorialized in a settlement agreement and incorporated into an amended judgment.
- While negotiating the final settlement agreement, the parties disputed whether the MOU was itself a binding contract.
- This Court remanded for the district court to decide whether the MOU was enforceable; the district court held it was enforceable, and Castillo appealed that ruling.
- On appeal, the Court of Appeals reviewed whether the signed MOU constituted a contract, rejected Castillo’s undeveloped challenges, denied his motion to amend the docketing statement to add numerous new issues, and affirmed enforcement of the MOU.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the memorandum of understanding is an enforceable contract | Castillo: the MOU was not intended to be binding, lacks offer/acceptance/consideration, and no agreement was reached | Defendants: the signed MOU contained mutual promises, forming an accepted offer and consideration to settle disputes | Court: the MOU is an enforceable contract—signed, supported by offer, acceptance, consideration, and mutual assent |
| Whether evidence that Castillo failed to obtain a survey defeats enforceability | Castillo: Defendants’ assertion that he breached by not obtaining a survey is fraudulent | Defendants: asserted Castillo did not obtain the survey (record evidence cited) | Court: factual dispute about the survey is irrelevant to the threshold question; enforceability turns on the MOU’s terms, not that specific factual assertion |
| Whether the Court should allow Castillo to amend his docketing statement to add numerous new issues | Castillo: seeks to add many issues and factual allegations (some not in the record) | Defendants: oppose amendment; issues are not preserved and many lack record support | Court: denied the motion to amend because new issues were untimely, not preserved, not viable, or outside the record |
| Whether issues from the prior district-court trial remain reviewable | Castillo: reasserts various trial-based complaints on appeal | Defendants: settlement via the MOU resolved the underlying dispute, rendering prior-trial issues moot | Court: prior-trial issues are moot because the MOU constitutes a valid settlement of those claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Strausberg v. Laurel Healthcare Providers, LLC, 304 P.3d 409 (N.M. 2013) (explaining contract proof requires offer, acceptance, consideration, and mutual assent)
- State v. Mondragon, 759 P.2d 1003 (N.M. Ct. App. 1988) (appellant must specifically point out errors in responding to summary calendar notice)
- State v. Harris, 297 P.3d 374 (N.M. Ct. App. 2013) (procedural discussion on summary calendar practice)
- State v. Moore, 782 P.2d 91 (N.M. Ct. App. 1989) (standards for amending a docketing statement on appeal)
- State v. Reynolds, 804 P.2d 1082 (N.M. Ct. App. 1990) (matters outside the record present no issue for review)
- Headley v. Morgan Mgmt. Corp., 110 P.3d 1076 (N.M. Ct. App. 2005) (court will not construct undeveloped appellate arguments for a party)