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

• The case involves three defendants who entered into finance agreements to purchase cars, which included various fees and a life insurance policy with the bank as the primary beneficiary. After failing to make timely payments, the bank invoked an acceleration clause, leading to the voluntary return of the vehicles. The cars were sold at auction, but a deficiency remained, which was sold to Autovest, L.L.C., a third-party debt collector. Autovest brought an action to recover the remaining deficiency more than five years after the default and eight years after the purchase, despite a four-year statute of limitations specified by the UCC for transactions involving the sale of goods (paras 2-4).

Procedural History

• Court of Appeals: Affirmed that Chapter 37’s partial payment rule does not revive the four-year statute of limitations for breach of contract actions under the UCC. Autovest abandoned its argument for adopting a common law partial payment rule by failing to raise it in its direct appeal from the district court (para 1).

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Petitioner (Autovest, L.L.C.): Argued that the suit was timely because the defendant's payment revived the statute of limitations under New Mexico’s partial payment rule, which renews the four-year limitation period whenever a debtor remits any amount toward an outstanding balance. Also contended that the UCC’s tolling provision overrides the mandatory prohibition of the exclusion provision, thereby preserving the partial payment rule applicable to the sale of goods (paras 5, 7, 10).
• Defendants-Respondents (Debra and Debbie Agosto, Maria Estrada): Contended that the UCC bars the claim because it specifies a four-year statute of limitations for transactions involving the sale of goods, and more than four years have passed since the cause of action accrued (para 4).

Legal Issues

• Whether Chapter 37’s partial payment rule revives the four-year statute of limitations for breach of contract actions under the UCC.
• Whether New Mexico should adopt a common law partial payment rule.

Disposition

• The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision that Chapter 37’s partial payment rule does not revive the four-year statute of limitations for breach of contract actions under the UCC. It also concluded that Autovest abandoned its argument for adopting a common law partial payment rule by failing to raise it in its direct appeal (para 1).

Reasons

• The Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Thomson, held that the exclusion provision in Chapter 37 unambiguously precludes the application of the partial payment statute due to the UCC establishing a different limitation period for transactions involving the sale of goods. The Court found that the UCC’s tolling provision does not alter existing tolling law and thus does not supersede the Legislature’s mandatory exclusion of Chapter 37. The Court also noted that Autovest had ample opportunity to present the issue of a common law partial payment rule but failed to do so adequately. The decision emphasizes the importance of adhering to the Legislature's clear language and intent, preventing the revival of time-barred debts and protecting consumers from "zombie debt" (paras 8-34).