Guinn v. Williams

1

FOX GUINN, Plaintiff/Counterdefendant-Appellee, v. PEGGY WILLIAMS, Defendant/Counterplaintiff-Appellant.

No. A-1-CA-40578

Court of Appeals of New Mexico

April 22, 2024

Corrections to this opinion/decision not affecting the outcome, at the Court's discretion, can occur up to the time of publication with NM Compilation Commission. The Court will ensure that the electronic version of this opinion/decision is updated accordingly in Odyssey.

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF CURRY COUNTY Drew D. Tatum District Court Judge

Floyd D. Wilson, P.C.

Floyd D. Wilson

Cedar Crest, NM

for Appellee

Lovell, Lovell, Isern & Farabough, LLP

Joe L Lovell

Hannah L. Rivera

Amarillo, TX

for Appellant

MEMORANDUM OPINION

KRISTINA BOGARDUS, JUDGE

{¶1} Defendant Peggy Williams appeals from a judgment entered against her by the district court following a bench trial. On appeal, Defendant argues that the district court erred by (1) concluding that Plaintiff Fox Guinn's claim was timely filed, (2) granting Plaintiff's claim for unjust enrichment, and (3) rejecting Plaintiff's counterclaims. Because we conclude that Plaintiff's claim was not time-barred, was supported by substantial evidence, and that Defendant's counterclaims were either granted, unpreserved or unsupported, we affirm.

BACKGROUND

{¶2} The following factual background is drawn from the district court's findings of fact entered after the trial. Plaintiff and Defendant's late husband, Bennett Williams, entered into an arrangement to acquire vacant lots and develop them. Plaintiff and Williams never entered into a formal contract or partnership. Nevertheless, under the arrangement, Williams purchased land and financed construction of buildings on it, including the purchase of materials, permits, and the cost of subcontractors. In return, Plaintiff served as the general contractor for construction. After construction and sale of the properties, Plaintiff and Williams would equally share the net profit. Williams and Plaintiff developed and sold approximately thirteen properties in this fashion.

{¶3} In September 2011, Williams and Defendant purchased property at 117 and 121 Gayland (the properties). Williams and Defendant took title to the properties as joint tenants with a right of survivorship. They financed the construction of a duplex on each lot with loans they borrowed from the Bank of Clovis. They were the only obligors on the loans. Williams died in October 2011 shortly after purchasing the properties.

{¶4} In November 2011, Fox Homes, Inc., Plaintiff's company, received the permits for construction of the duplexes on the properties. Construction was completed in April 2012. Defendant with Plaintiff's knowledge, began renting out the duplexes the same month, and paid all expenses associated with the ownership, maintenance, and rental of the two duplexes. By September 2012, Defendant had paid all subcontractor invoices, bills, and charges for goods and services incurred in connection with the construction of the duplexes. Plaintiff never received his share of the net rental income, nor did he request Defendant pay him for his construction services related to the properties, or reimburse him for gross receipts taxes (GRT) he was assessed on the properties.

{¶5} In March 2020, Defendant attempted to sell both properties without splitting the profits with Plaintiff. In response to Defendant's attempt to sell, Plaintiff delivered an invoice to the title company, which was reviewing the properties for sale, asserting his claim for the money owed to him. As a result, Defendant sent a letter to Plaintiff demanding he withdraw the claim. After receiving the letter, Plaintiff filed his complaint.

{¶6} The district court concluded that, although Defendant and Plaintiff were not engaged in a partnership, and neither Williams nor Defendant entered into an enforceable contract with Plaintiff, nonetheless, Defendant was unjustly enriched by the services Plaintiff provided. The district court ordered Defendant pay restitution to Plaintiff for his services and to pay the GRTs assessed against him, altogether approximately $85,000. Defendant appeals.

DISCUSSION

{¶7} We begin by reiterating basic appellate principles to remind Defendant of her burdens on appeal. First, this Court operates pursuant to a presumption of correctness in favor of the district court's rulings, and it is the appellant's burden to demonstrate error on appeal. See Farmers, Inc. v. Dal Mach. & Fabricating Inc., 1990-NMSC-100, ¶ 8, 111 N.M. 6, 800 P.2d 1063 (stating that the burden is on the appellant to clearly demonstrate that the district court erred); see also State v. Aragon, 1999-NMCA-060, ¶ 10, 127 N.M. 393, 981 P.2d 1211 (stating that there is a presumption of correctness in the rulings or decisions of the district court, and the party claiming error bears the burden of showing such error). Second, "[w]e will not search the record for facts, arguments, and rulings in order to support generalized arguments." Muse v. Muse, 2009-NMCA-003, ¶ 72, 145 N.M. 451, 200 P.3d 104. Summarizing the evidence and making a generalized assertion that the evidence does not support the district court's findings of fact, without directly attacking them, is insufficient. See Tres Ladrones, Inc. v. Fitch, 1999-NMCA-076, ¶ 17, 127 N.M. 437, 982 P.2d 488 (rejecting the contention that no evidence supported a finding because the appellant failed to properly attack the finding). Lastly, it is Defendant's burden to provide citations to the record. See Santa Fe Expl. Co. v. Oil Conservation Comm'n, 1992-NMSC-044, ¶ 11, 114 N.M. 103, 835 P.2d 819 (stating that appellate courts have no duty to entertain factual contentions on appeal not supported by citations to the record proper). With these principles in mind, we turn to our discussion of the issues raised.

I. The District Court Did Not Err in Determining Defendant Was Unjustly Enriched

A. Plaintiff's Unjust Enrichment Claim Is Not Barred by the Applicable Statute of Limitations

{¶8} Defendant first asserts that the district court erred in granting Plaintiff's claim for unjust enrichment because it was barred by the applicable four-year statute of limitations. The parties agree that the applicable statute of limitations is four years, see NMSA 1978, § 37-1-4 (1880). However, Defendant argues that the cause of action accrued in 2012 upon the completion of the construction of the duplexes, rather than in 2020 when Defendant sought to sell the properties without splitting the profit with Plaintiff. We agree with the district court that the cause of action accrued in 2020.

{¶9} The determination of which accrual rule applies to a cause of action is a question of law when the applicable statute is silent. Roberts v. Sw. Cmty. Health Servs., 1992-NMSC-042, ¶ 15, 114 N.M. 248, 837 P.2d 442 ("In absence of explicit instructions from the legislature, when a cause of action accrues under a statute of limitation is a judicial determination."). However, once the district court has determined the applicable rule, the question of when the cause of action accrued under that rule is a question of fact. See Williams v. Stewart, 2005-NMCA-061, ¶ 16, 137 N.M. 420, 112 P.3d 281 (stating that the application of an accrual rule is a jury question especially when conflicting inferences may be drawn); Yurcic v. City of Gallup, 2013-NMCA-039, ¶ 10, 298 P.3d 500 (stating that whether a claim has been filed timely is a question of fact that only becomes a question of law "when the facts are undisputed").

{¶10} The district court found that Plaintiff and Williams had formed an arrangement in which Plaintiff would act as general contractor for the properties jointly owned. It further determined that approximately thirteen homes were built this way and Plaintiff was paid for his work only after the properties were sold. Additionally, the district court determined that Defendant attempted to sell the homes without paying Plaintiff and told Plaintiff she would file suit against him if he did not withdraw the invoice Plaintiff submitted to the title company requesting payment. Lastly, the district court found that Plaintiff had not been paid and, because of the existing arrangement, he had not expected to be paid until the properties were sold. Based on these findings, the district court concluded that Plaintiff's claim of unjust enrichment did not accrue until Plaintiff learned that Defendant attempted to sell the properties without paying him.

{¶11} The district court's findings were supported by Plaintiff's testimony concerning the longstanding arrangement between Williams and himself. Therefore, we conclude that the district court's findings of fact were supported by substantial evidence. See Autrey v. Autrey, 2022-NMCA-042, ¶ 9, 516 P.3d 207 ("The testimony of a single witness, if found credible by the district court, is sufficient to constitute substantial evidence supporting a finding.").

{¶12} Moreover, the district court's conclusion that Plaintiff's cause of action accrued in 2020 is in accordance with the law. Defendant sought to profit at Plaintiff's expense when she put the properties up for sale without paying Plaintiff. See Martin v. Comcast Cablevision Corp. of Cal., LLC, 2014-NMCA-114, ¶ 13, 338 P.3d 107 (explaining that "[a] 'benefit' for purposes of an unjust enrichment claim is any form of advantage that has a measurable value including the advantage of being saved from an expense or loss" (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). Thus, Plaintiff's claim was triggered in March 2020 when Defendant put the properties up for sale. Since Plaintiff filed his complaint in April of the same year, his cause of action for unjust enrichment was timely filed....