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

• A dispute arose over a collapsed retaining wall system separating properties in a New Mexico subdivision. Plaintiffs, homeowners in the subdivision, entered into a building group membership and labor agreement with Defendant ECHO for home construction services, which included the construction of a retaining wall system. The wall system, constructed in part by Defendant McWilliams and financially contributed to by Defendant Lasater, collapsed in January 2017, leading to damage to the properties. Plaintiffs filed claims against various defendants, including McWilliams, ECHO, and the Lasater Defendants, alleging breach of contract, breach of implied warranty, and negligence related to the construction and maintenance of the retaining wall system and a French drain installed on one of the properties.

Procedural History

• District Court of San Juan County: Granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants McWilliams, ECHO, and the Lasater Defendants, finding that the claims were barred by statutes of repose and limitations.

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiffs: Argued that there was a genuine issue of material fact regarding when they began to use the retaining wall system on their property and that Defendants failed to show Plaintiffs knew or should have known about the latent construction defect.
• Defendant McWilliams: Asserted that Plaintiffs' claims were barred by the ten-year statute of repose.
• Defendant ECHO: Contended that Plaintiffs' claims were barred by the six-year statute of limitations for written contracts and the four-year statute of limitations for unwritten contracts and injuries to property.
• Lasater Defendants: Argued similarly to ECHO, adding that claims related to the French drain were barred by the discovery rule.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in granting summary judgments based on statutes of repose and limitations.
• Whether the discovery rule applies to Plaintiffs' breach of contract and breach of implied warranty claims.

Disposition

• Affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court's grants of summary judgment for Defendants McWilliams, ECHO, and the Lasater Defendants.
• Affirmed the district court's denial of Plaintiffs Schriek, Olguin, and Fuller's motions for reconsideration.

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals conducted a de novo review of the grants of summary judgment and the denials of motions for reconsideration. The court found that the statute of repose barred all claims against Defendant McWilliams due to the retaining wall system being in use since November 2006, more than ten years before the suits were filed (paras 24-33). For Defendant ECHO, the court reversed the summary judgment for Plaintiffs Schriek, Olguin, and Stagg's claims, finding disputed questions of material fact regarding their awareness of the wall's defects (paras 35-48). However, it affirmed summary judgment for Plaintiff Fuller's claims against ECHO due to his prior knowledge of the wall's issues (paras 37-43). Regarding the Lasater Defendants, the court affirmed summary judgment on Plaintiff Fuller's claims but reversed it for Plaintiffs Schriek and Olguin's claims, again due to a lack of evidence showing their prior knowledge of defects (paras 50-60). The court also addressed the application of the discovery rule to Plaintiffs' contract-based claims, extending its application and finding that the district court either did not consider or misapplied it in some instances (paras 17-22).