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 2011, a notary public notarized a general work experience affidavit purportedly signed by Floren Lujan Jr. for a contractor license renewal, which was allegedly falsely signed by Mary Ann Lujan in Floren's name. Floren filed a complaint in 2015 against Mary Ann and others for various breaches and misconduct, and died in late 2016. In June 2020, the personal representative of Floren's estate filed a complaint for damages for fraud against the notary public based on the false affidavit (paras 2-4).

Procedural History

• District Court of Valencia County: Granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant, Nancy Tafoya, concluding that a complaint alleging misconduct by a notary public is limited by the Notary Public Act, and the plaintiff's complaint was filed more than two years after the alleged misconduct was discovered (para 4).

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff: Argued that the Notary Public Act does not provide the exclusive remedy for misconduct of a notary public, the two-year statute of limitations does not apply to his claim, and no alternate grounds exist to affirm the district court (para 1).
• Defendant: Contended that the claim for misconduct must be against the notary public’s official bond as required by the Notary Public Act, and the fraud claim was barred by the statute of limitations since it was filed more than four years after the fraud was discovered (para 4).

Legal Issues

• Whether the Notary Public Act provides the exclusive remedy for misconduct by a notary public.
• Whether the plaintiff's fraud claim is barred by the statute of limitations (paras 5, 13).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant and remanded for further proceedings (para 21).

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, with Judge Michael D. Bustamante presiding and Judges Jennifer L. Attrep and Gerald E. Baca concurring, found that the Notary Public Act does not provide the exclusive remedy for misconduct by a notary public. The use of "may" in the Act indicates that it is permissive, not mandatory, allowing for other remedies beyond the official bond claim. The Act lacks language suggesting exclusivity, contrasting with other statutes that explicitly provide for exclusive remedies. Additionally, the difference in remedies between the Notary Public Act and common law indicates the Legislature did not intend for the Act to be exclusive. The court also found a genuine issue of material fact regarding when the statute of limitations for the plaintiff's claim began to run, as there was a dispute over when Floren was alerted to the alleged false affidavit. The court declined to take judicial notice of documents not presented to the district court, emphasizing the district court's role in determining the presence of genuine issues of material fact (paras 5-20).