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 revolves around a contract dispute concerning the construction of a therapy pool and integrated spa in Las Cruces, New Mexico. The plaintiffs, LDB Properties, LLC, and Las Cruces Comprehensive Rehabilitation, Home Care and Hospice, entered into an agreement with defendant Pools and Spas Unlimited d/b/a Pools by Design, owned by defendant Franklin Wells, for the construction of the therapy pool. Defendant Jay Miller was responsible for submitting the construction plans, and the New Mexico Environmental Department (NMED) issued a construction permit based on these plans. However, issues arose with the pool's water turnover rate and the omission of a secondary disinfection system, leading to litigation against Wells, PBD, Miller, and NMED, with NMED settling and being dismissed from the case (paras 1-3).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiffs: Argued that defendants breached the contract, committed unjust enrichment, breached the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, breached warranty, were negligent, made negligent or intentional misrepresentations, violated the Unfair Practices Act, were liable under equitable estoppel, and committed inverse condemnation (para 4).
• Defendants Pools & Spas Unlimited d/b/a Pools by Design and Franklin Wells: Contended they did not breach the contractual agreement with plaintiffs and were not liable for Miller’s conduct or any damages resulting from it (paras 5, 10).
• Defendant Jay Miller: Failed to enter a legal appearance or raise a defense (para 5).

Legal Issues

• Whether the defendants breached the terms of their agreement with the plaintiffs.
• Whether the district court erred in its decision to strike the parties’ post-trial submission of findings of fact and conclusions of law.
• Whether the district court erred in limiting the testimony of a general contractor, Robert Jones, regarding the standard of care.
• Whether defendants were vicariously liable for Miller's actions.

Disposition

• The district court's judgment was affirmed, finding Miller negligent and liable for $56,959 but concluding that PBD and Wells had no liability for Miller’s conduct and had not breached the terms of the contractual relationship with Plaintiffs (para 5).

Reasons

• Judge Pro Tem Bruce D. Black, with Judges Jacqueline R. Medina and Katherine A. Wray concurring: The court found substantial evidence supporting the district court’s findings, including that the pool was constructed according to the original plans and that solutions were reached to bring the pool into compliance with the Model Aquatic Health Code (MAHC) after NMED discovered the error in the original plans. The court also found no error in the district court’s decision to strike the parties’ post-trial submissions, as they did not comply with court instructions. The court agreed with the district court's decision to limit the testimony of Robert Jones, as he was not disclosed as a standard of care expert and had no experience in pool construction. Finally, the court supported the district court's conclusion that Miller was not an employee or agent of PBD or Wells, thus they were not vicariously liable for his actions (paras 7-17).