336 P.3d 398
N.M. Ct. App.2014Background
- In April 2000 Thomas Baigas constructed a deck for Paulette Jacobs at a rental property; in 2009 S. Louis Little fell from the deck and was injured.
- Little sued Jacobs in 2011; Jacobs later identified Baigas and Little amended to add him in 2013.
- Baigas denied he was licensed when he built the deck and asserted as an affirmative defense that the claim was time-barred by NMSA 1978 § 37-1-27 (a ten-year statute of repose).
- The district court granted Baigas’s motion (treated as summary judgment) applying § 37-1-27 and dismissed Little’s claim.
- On appeal, the sole legal issue was whether § 37-1-27’s ten-year repose period may be invoked by an unlicensed contractor in light of New Mexico’s statutory and case law hostility to unlicensed contracting.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 37-1-27 applies to unlicensed contractors | § 37-1-27 should not protect unlicensed contractors; public policy and CILA bar any statutory benefit to those who contract without a license | The statute’s plain language bars actions after ten years against “any person performing or furnishing . . . construction,” so it applies regardless of licensing | Reversed: § 37-1-27 does not permit unlicensed contractors to invoke its protections |
Key Cases Cited
- Mascarenas v. Jaramillo, 111 N.M. 410 (1991) (describes CILA’s purpose and public policy against unlicensed contractors)
- Triple B Corp. v. Brown & Root, Inc., 106 N.M. 99 (1987) (refuses equitable recovery by unlicensed contractors; enforces § 60-13-30 bar)
- Saiz v. Belen Sch. Dist., 113 N.M. 387 (1992) (distinguishes statute of repose from statute of limitations; discusses § 37-1-27)
- State ex rel. Helman v. Gallegos, 117 N.M. 346 (1994) (statutory interpretation doctrines: plain meaning vs. rejection-of-literal-language)
- Inv. Co. of the Sw. v. Reese, 117 N.M. 655 (1994) (courts may look beyond literal wording when literal result is unjust or contrary to legislative intent)
- Jacobo v. City of Albuquerque, 138 N.M. 184 (2005) (recognizes § 37-1-27’s protection is tailored to those in the construction industry)