Montano v. New Mexico Real Estate

18 Citing cases

  1. Van Winkle v. Belleview Valley Land Co. (In re Van Winkle)

    13-11743 t7 (Bankr. D.N.M. Nov. 3, 2021)

    Navajo Tribe of Indians v. Hanosh Chevrolet-Buick, Inc., 749 P.2d 90, 92 (N.M. 1988); Montano v. NM Real Estate Appraiser's Bd., 200 P.3d 544, 547 (N.M. App. 2008) ("It is well settled law that th[e] [c]ourt generally enforces settlement agreements.").

  2. Commc'n Workers of Am., AFL-CIO v. State

    446 P.3d 1183 (N.M. Ct. App. 2019)   Cited 1 times

    Cty. of Los Alamos v. Martinez , 2011-NMCA-027, ¶ 21, 150 N.M. 326, 258 P.3d 1118 (alteration, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted); see Regents of Univ. of N.M. v. N.M. Fed'n of Teachers , 1998-NMSC-020, ¶ 18, 125 N.M. 401, 962 P.2d 1236. "We will not disturb the agency's factual findings if supported by substantial evidence, although we engage in a whole record review." Montano v. N.M. Real Estate Appraiser's Bd. , 2009-NMCA-009, ¶ 8, 145 N.M. 494, 200 P.3d 544. "Substantial evidence is evidence that a reasonable mind would regard as adequate to support a conclusion."

  3. Llena v. Montoya

    299 P.3d 456 (N.M. Ct. App. 2013)   Cited 7 times
    In La Vida Llena the Court of Appeals looked only at the facial text of Section 7-36-7(B)(1)(d) to reach its holding that the statutory requirement that the facility "donates or renders gratuitously a portion of its facilities or services" imposed no threshold on the amount of the donation.

    However, although we engage in whole record review, we will not disturb any of an agency's factual findings that are supported by substantial evidence. Montano v. N.M. Real Estate Appraiser's Bd., 2009–NMCA–009, ¶ 8, 145 N.M. 494, 200 P.3d 544. Quantitative Meaning of “Portion”

  4. Myers v. Papa Tex.

    2:23-cv-01096-DHU-JHR (D.N.M. Sep. 19, 2024)

    See, e.g. Herbison, 2019 WL 1228072 at *1 (noting that, “[immediately following court-ordered mediation, the parties signed a hand-written settlement memorandum prepared by the mediator agreeing to specific terms and conditions.”); Montano v. N.M. Real Estate Appraiser's Bd., 2009-NMCA-009, ¶ 12, 145 N.M. 494, 200 P.3d 544 (determining that it would enforce an executed settlement agreement despite the petitioner's claim that he did not receive notice of the administrative approval of the settlement); Bransfordv. Bransford, No. 31,643, 2013 WL 6145906 (N.M. Ct. App. Oct. 23, 2013) (rejecting a challenge to a settlement agreement that had been fully executed for three years).

  5. McClendon v. City of Albuquerque

    CIV. 95-0024 JP/ACT (D.N.M. Sep. 16, 2010)

    Id. ¶ 14 (internal quotations marks and citations omitted). See also In re Tocci, 45 N.M. 133, 112 P.2d 515 (1941); Montano v. NM Real Estate Appraiser's Bd., 2009-NMCA-009, ¶ 12, 145 N.M. 494, 200 P.3d 544; Beaver Creek Coal Co. v. Nevada Power Co., 968 F.2d 19 (table), 1992 WL 113747, at *4 (D. Utah May 27, 1992) (unpublished) (denying buyer's claim that long-term contract for purchase of coal was inequitable due to change in market rate of coal). The 2001 Agreement is a settlement agreement that replaced the 2000 Order, and the 2001 Agreement expressly established that the agreed-upon rates would be effective "until the end of the litigation."

  6. Gonzales v. Liberman (In re Brutsche)

    No. 11-13326-j7 (Bankr. D.N.M. Feb. 11, 2013)

    Those exceptions include grossly inequitable conduct such as: (1) fraud, (2) oppression, (3) unconscionable conduct; (4) undue influence; (5) illegality; or (6) "other grounds of righteousness, justice and morality." Id. at 734, 544 (internal quotations omitted); Arena Resources, Inc., 148 N.M. at 487, 238 P.3d at 361; Nearburg v. Yates Petroleum Corp., 123 N.M. 526, 537, 943 P.2d 560, 571 (Ct.App. 1997); Montano v. N.M. Real Estate Appraiser's Bd., 145 N.M. 494, 497, 200 P.3d 544, 547 (Ct.App. 2008). The Court agrees with Mr. Brutsche that the existence of a valid contract between the parties does not automatically foreclose Mr. Brutsche's claim for unjust enrichment.

  7. Strausberg v. Laurel Healthcare Providers, LLC

    304 P.3d 409 (N.M. 2013)   Cited 70 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a special rule that applies only to nursing home arbitration agreements is preempted by the FAA, but stating that “a court may, consistent with the FAA ... invalidate an arbitration agreement through the application of an existing common law contract defense such as unconscionability”

    See Rivera, 2011–NMSC–033, ¶ 17, 150 N.M. 398, 259 P.3d 803 (“Agreements to arbitrate may ... be invalidated by generally applicable contract defenses, such as ... unconscionability.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)); see also State ex rel. State Highway & Transp. Dep't v. Garley, 111 N.M. 383, 389–91, 806 P.2d 32, 38–40 (1991) (discussing unconscionability as one “exception” to the general principle that parties are bound by the terms of a written contract with plain, unequivocal terms); Fid. Nat'l Bank v. Tommy L. Goff, Inc., 92 N.M. 106, 107, 583 P.2d 470, 471 (1978) (referring to the “affirmative defense” of unconscionability); Montano v. N.M. Real Estate Appraiser's Bd., 2009–NMCA–009, ¶ 12, 145 N.M. 494, 200 P.3d 544 (“We will allow equity to interfere with enforcing clear contractual obligations only when well-defined equitable exceptions, such as unconscionability, mistake, fraud, or illegality justify deviation from the parties' contract.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). {39} Thus, we conclude that Plaintiff, the party alleging unconscionability in this case, bears the burden of proof because unconscionability is an affirmative contract defense, and under settled principles of New Mexico contract law, the party alleging an affirmative contract defense has the burden to prove that the contract is unenforceable on that basis.

  8. Elephant Butte Irrigation Dist. v. N.M. Water Quality Control Comm'n

    2022 NMCA 45 (N.M. Ct. App. 2022)

    Instead, we emphasize only that it appears to be reasonable for the AHO, and later the Commission, to give less weight to this evidence and hold that the factual findings of the AHO are supported by substantial evidence. See Montano v. N.M. Real Est. Appraiser's Bd., 2009-NMCA-009, ¶ 8, 145 N.M. 494, 200 P.3d 544 ("We will not disturb the agency's factual findings [that are] supported by substantial evidence.").

  9. Elephant Butte Irrigation Dist. v. N.M. Water Quality Control Comm'n

    516 P.3d 231 (N.M. Ct. App. 2022)   Cited 2 times

    Instead, we emphasize only that it appears to be reasonable for the AHO, and later the Commission, to give less weight to this evidence and hold that the factual findings of the AHO are supported by substantial evidence. See Montano v. N.M. Real Est. Appraiser's Bd. , 2009-NMCA-009, ¶ 8, 145 N.M. 494, 200 P.3d 544 ("We will not disturb the agency's factual findings [that are] supported by substantial evidence."). {20} Because we decline to disturb the uncontested factual findings within the AHO Report, and determine that the Commission's Final Order as it relies on such factual findings is supported by substantial evidence, we hold that the Commission's determination that the Mine does not pose undue risk to property is not arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise not in accordance with the law.

  10. Halliburton Energy Servs. v. N.M. Taxation & Revenue Dep't

    No. A-1-CA-37978 (N.M. Ct. App. Feb. 15, 2022)

    Here, the finding regarding the purpose of CRC proppant is supported by substantial evidence, and we decline to disturb it. See Montano v. N.M. Real Estate Appraiser's Bd., 2009-NMCA-009, ¶ 8, 145 N.M. 494, 200 P.3d 544 ("We will not disturb the agency's factual findings [that are] supported by substantial evidence[.]"). This is particularly true in this case where specialized technical or scientific knowledge is involved.