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 2021, the Lessee leased a portion of a building in Santa Fe, New Mexico, for office space, dance-based events, and yoga-type classes. After the original lessor's death in 2022, the Lessor acquired the property and the remaining lease. The City of Santa Fe red-tagged the property for lacking an occupancy permit, leading the Lessor to deny the Lessee further entry. The Lessee sought injunctive relief to restore access, which was initially granted but later dissolved by the district court, prompting the Lessee to file a complaint for damages (paras 2-4).

Procedural History

• District Court of Santa Fe County: Granted a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction permitting Lessee access, which was later dissolved. The court dismissed the original complaint and the amended complaint for damages under Rules 1-012(B)(6) and 1-019(A) NMRA, with the latter dismissal being with prejudice (paras 3-4).

Parties' Submissions

• Lessee: Argued for injunctive relief to restore access to the property and filed a complaint seeking damages for breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing (para 4).
• Lessor: Filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the lease was unenforceable due to the use contemplated being not permitted by the applicable zoning code (para 1).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in dismissing the Lessee's complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under Rule 1-012(B)(6) (para 6).
• Whether the district court properly converted a Rule 1-012(B)(6) motion to dismiss into a summary judgment based on evidence presented at a preliminary injunction hearing (para 8).
• Whether the lease was unenforceable due to the contemplated use not being permitted by the applicable zoning code (para 9).

Disposition

• The New Mexico Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's dismissal of the Lessee's complaint for damages, holding that the lease was unenforceable as it contemplated a use not permitted by the applicable zoning code (para 1).

Reasons

• Black, Pro Tem Judge (Ives, J., and Wray, J., concurring): The Court held that the lease was unenforceable due to the contemplated use not being permitted by the zoning code, affirming the district court's dismissal of the complaint. The Court reviewed the dismissal de novo and found that the Lessee failed to follow appellate procedure rules by attaching the wrong order to his notice of appeal but ruled that this did not affect the appellate jurisdiction. The Court also found that the district court properly converted the motion to dismiss into a summary judgment based on evidence from a preliminary injunction hearing, which the Lessee participated in without protest. The Court concluded that the Lessee could not rely on an illegal contract for his cause of action and that estoppel could not validate an illegal contract (paras 6-11).