AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• In April 2000, the Defendant-Appellee constructed a deck for a property in Arroyo Seco, New Mexico. In 2009, the Plaintiff-Appellant was injured after falling off this deck. Initially, the Plaintiff filed an action against the property owner in August 2011, and upon learning the Defendant's identity in January 2013, added him to the suit. The Defendant was an unlicensed contractor at the time the deck was built, a fact he admitted, and he sought dismissal of the case based on a ten-year statute of repose (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• District Court of Taos County: Granted Defendant-Appellee's motion to dismiss based on the ten-year statute of repose, NMSA 1978, Section 37-1-27 (1967) (para 1).

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellant: Argued that the ten-year statute of repose should not apply to an unlicensed contractor, opposing the dismissal of the case (para 4).
• Defendant-Appellee: Asserted that the Plaintiff’s claim was time-barred by the ten-year statute of repose, despite being an unlicensed contractor at the time of the deck's construction (para 3).

Legal Issues

• Whether the ten-year statute of repose, NMSA 1978, Section 37-1-27 (1967), applies to unlicensed contractors (para 6).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s order granting the motion to dismiss and remanded for proceedings consistent with the opinion that Section 37-1-27 does not apply to unlicensed contractors (para 21).

Reasons

• Per Bustamante, J., concurred by Vanzi, J., and Garcia, J.: The Court engaged in statutory interpretation to determine the Legislature's intent regarding the applicability of the ten-year statute of repose to unlicensed contractors. Given New Mexico's strong public policy against unlicensed contractors, the Court found that allowing an unlicensed contractor to benefit from the statute of repose would be contrary to legislative intent. The Court distinguished between statutes of limitations and statutes of repose, noting the specific commencement of the latter from the date of substantial completion of construction. It highlighted the legislative and judicial disfavor towards unlicensed contractors, emphasizing that statutes and case law reflect a policy against allowing unlicensed contractors to profit from their work. The Court concluded that the Legislature did not intend for unlicensed contractors to invoke the protections of the statute of repose, aligning with the broader legislative policy to discourage unlicensed contracting. This interpretation was deemed consistent with previous decisions and the overarching purpose of the Construction Industries Licensing Act (paras 5-20).