Valles v. Ortiz, 34,868

Plaintiffs (sellers) and Defendant (buyer) entered a real-estate purchase contract; dispute followed over performance and payments.
District court rescinded the contract, quieted title in favor of Plaintiffs, and awarded liquidated damages for amounts past due under the contract plus attorney fees.
Defendant appealed, arguing the award constituted double recovery (damages plus rescission), that the court ignored his unrebutted testimony about misrepresentations as to acreage, that the forfeiture was unconscionable, and that attorney fees were improper.
Court of Appeals issued a proposed summary disposition affirming; Defendant filed a memorandum in opposition reiterating the same arguments.
The Court of Appeals affirmed: it held damages awarded were past-due/liquidated (not expectancy), credibility determinations and the rescission mooted acreage disputes, the forfeiture did not shock the conscience given five years’ possession and no showing of excessive payments, and the contract’s broad fee clause supported the attorney-fee award.

Issue	Plaintiffs' Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether awarding damages plus rescission produced impermissible double recovery	Awards were limited to liquidated, past-due sums (not expectancy) so no double recovery	Buckingham prohibits awarding both damages and rescission—Defendant claims payments became expectancy because he withheld payments	Held: No double recovery; awarded sums were past-due liquidated damages, not expectancy damages
Whether district court erred by not crediting Defendant’s testimony about land quantity/misrepresentation	Rescission moots quantity dispute; credibility is for the factfinder	Testimony about acreage was unrebutted and should have been credited	Held: Court properly assessed credibility; acreage issue rendered moot by rescission
Whether the forfeiture (seller’s retention of payments) was unconscionable/shocks the conscience	Forfeiture not excessive given five years’ possession and Defendant made no showing amounts exceeded value of possession	Forfeiture shocks conscience; factors (e.g., percent paid) favor buyer	Held: Not unconscionable; Defendant failed to show payments were excessive relative to benefit received
Whether attorney fees were improperly awarded	Contract contains a broad prevailing-party attorney-fees clause; fees are recoverable under the contract	Fees should be limited/denied based on Defendant’s reliance on Buckingham	Held: Fee award affirmed pursuant to the contractual attorney-fees provision

Buckingham v. Ryan, 953 P.2d 33 (N.M. Ct. App. 1998) (distinguishes expectancy damages from liquidated damages and addresses limits on awarding contract damages with rescission)
Huckins v. Ritter, 661 P.2d 52 (N.M. 1983) (considers percentage paid, possession period, and substitute use/value when assessing forfeiture fairness)
Strickland v. Roosevelt Cty. Rural Elec. Coop., 612 P.2d 689 (N.M. Ct. App. 1980) (credibility of interested witnesses is for the trier of fact)
Hennessy v. Duryea, 955 P.2d 683 (N.M. Ct. App. 1998) (party opposing proposed disposition must clearly point out errors; supports enforcement of contractual fee provisions)