Little v. Baigas
2017 NMCA 27
| N.M. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- In 2000 Baigas (unlicensed) built a deck for Jacobs without a building permit.
- In July 2009 Little fell from that deck and was injured; he sued Jacobs on August 3, 2011.
- Little served discovery asking who built the deck; Jacobs twice said she did not know and would look, but did not produce a name before the limitations period expired (July 14, 2012).
- Jacobs disclosed a cancelled check showing Baigas as the builder on January 3, 2013; Little amended to add Baigas on January 18, 2013.
- Baigas moved for summary judgment arguing the three-year personal-injury statute of limitations had run; Little argued equitable tolling and equitable estoppel (and had earlier obtained a ruling that an unlicensed contractor cannot invoke the statute of repose).
- The district court granted summary judgment for Baigas; the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding Little failed to show the diligence or extraordinary circumstances for equitable tolling or the elements of equitable estoppel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Baigas may be joined after the 3-year limitations period | Little: equitable tolling applies because Jacobs’ delay and Baigas’ lack of license/permit concealed his identity | Baigas: the 3-year personal-injury statute of limitations expired before he was named | Held: Joinder was time-barred; Baigas established prima facie limitations defense |
| Whether equitable tolling excuses late joinder | Little: he diligently pursued Jacobs and could not discover Baigas despite due diligence; extraordinary circumstances existed | Baigas: Little failed to exercise reasonable diligence and no extraordinary circumstances prevented discovery | Held: Tolling denied — Little failed both the diligence and extraordinary-circumstances elements |
| Whether equitable estoppel (fraudulent concealment) bars the limitations defense | Little: Baigas’ unlicensed work and failure to obtain a permit effectively concealed his identity and should estop him | Baigas: no affirmative act or intent to conceal; no duty or relationship giving rise to estoppel; Little did not rely to his detriment on Baigas’ conduct | Held: Estoppel denied — Little failed to prove concealment, intent, reliance, or a duty to speak |
| Whether being an unlicensed contractor precludes asserting a statute of limitations defense | Little: public-policy against unlicensed contractors should bar them from invoking limitations | Baigas: statute of limitations is a generally available defense distinct from the statute of repose or claims to payment | Held: Unlicensed status does not, as a matter of law, automatically preclude asserting the statute of limitations |
Key Cases Cited
- Madrid v. Brinker Rest. Corp., 363 P.3d 1197 (N.M. 2016) (summary judgment standard and viewing evidence in favor of non-movant)
- Romero v. Philip Morris Inc., 242 P.3d 280 (N.M. 2010) (preference for trial on the merits; disfavors summary judgment)
- Estate of Brice v. Toyota Motor Corp., 373 P.3d 977 (N.M. 2016) (distinguishing equitable tolling from equitable estoppel)
- Slusser v. Vantage Builders, Inc., 306 P.3d 524 (N.M. Ct. App. 2013) (elements of equitable tolling)
- Lewis ex rel. Lewis v. Samson, 35 P.3d 972 (N.M. 2001) (carelessness does not satisfy diligence requirement)
- Gamboa v. Urena, 90 P.3d 534 (N.M. Ct. App. 2004) (New Mexico policy disfavors unlicensed contractors)
- Little v. Jacobs, 336 P.3d 398 (N.M. Ct. App. 2014) (earlier appeal holding an unlicensed contractor cannot invoke statute of repose)