{
  "id": 1588591,
  "name": "Michael R. and Debra R. NEWCUM, Plaintiffs-Counter-defendants-Appellees, v. L.E. LAWSON and Bernadine Lawson, Defendants-Counter-claimants-Appellants",
  "name_abbreviation": "Newcum v. Lawson",
  "decision_date": "1983-11-03",
  "docket_number": "No. 6062",
  "first_page": "512",
  "last_page": "514",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "100 N.M. 512"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "672 P.2d 1143"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.M. Ct. App.",
    "id": 9025,
    "name": "Court of Appeals of New Mexico"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 52,
    "name_long": "New Mexico",
    "name": "N.M."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "100 N.M. 440",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        1588588
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/100/0440-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "95 N.M. 182",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        1575592
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1980,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/95/0182-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "240 P. 469",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "P.",
      "year": 1925,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "30 N.M. 566",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        8842463
      ],
      "year": 1925,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/30/0566-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "71 N.M. 145",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        5349821
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1962,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/71/0145-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "97 N.M. 194",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        1555071
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/97/0194-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "94 N.M. 314",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        1573114
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/94/0314-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "78 N.M. 485",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        5321536
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1967,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/78/0485-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "58 N.M. 738",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        1587619
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1954,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/58/0738-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 450,
    "char_count": 7446,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.788,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 7.53404932217649e-08,
      "percentile": 0.44754906560189417
    },
    "sha256": "e6141e969d9ebb31ded900710742e95f0bc01ab797256a015f0581fe15eb0380",
    "simhash": "1:058be723513e32c2",
    "word_count": 1191
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:45:38.267108+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "LOPEZ and DONNELLY, JJ., concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "Michael R. and Debra R. NEWCUM, Plaintiffs-Counter-defendants-Appellees, v. L.E. LAWSON and Bernadine Lawson, Defendants-Counter-claimants-Appellants."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "OPINION\nWOOD, Judge.\nThe plaintiffs purchased residential property from the defendants. The plaintiffs sued the defendants for breach of contract and for damages based on the condition of the property which the defendants failed to disclose to the plaintiffs. Judgment was entered in favor of the plaintiffs. This appeal raises no issue as to the defendants\u2019 liability; the appellate issues are concerned with the damage awards. Those issues involve compensatory damages, punitive damages and a set-off in favor of the defendants.\nCompensatory Damages\nThe compensatory damage award was:\n1. Replace cabinets $ 1,300.00\n2. Replace trees 300.00\n3. Loss of value of residence 35,000.00\n4. Cost to correct duct problem 5,000.00\n5. Cost to correct subterranean water problem 10,000.00\n6. Cost of space heater 590.00\n$52,190.00\nThe defendants do not challenge the propriety of items 1, 2 and 6.\nThe defendants contend that item 5 is not supported by substantial evidence. Dr. Heggen confirmed there was a subterranean water problem: \u201cwater is getting in and we don\u2019t know from where\u201d, that he had \u201cnot really tried to analyze the whole problem\u201d, and proposed a solution only for water accumulation in connection with the air conditioning-heating unit. The proposed solution was installation of a drain field to divert water away from the air conditioner unit. This proposed solution was a partial solution; it would solve the air conditioning problem. \u201cI hesitate to say that it would totally fix the problem, and I don\u2019t think I can say that it would drain other parts of the house or solve the larger problem.\u201d Dr. Heggen agreed that to really obtain a solution of the subterranean water problem \u201csomeone has to come up with a way to find out where the water is coming from and dry up the source rather than continue this flowing through.\u201d The cost of a solution would be $10,000.00 and involved digging additional holes in the yard and curtailing the plaintiffs\u2019 water use for several months. This evidence supports the $10,000.00 amount in item 5.\nThe defendants contend that the trial court awarded duplicate damages in items 3, 4 and 5. They assert that loss of value in item 3 is a duplication of the damages in items 4 and 5. They point out that the plaintiffs may have been entitled to recover upon two possible theories of damage, however, it was the trial court\u2019s duty to compensate the plaintiffs for their loss on the theory that was least burdensome to the defendants. See Industrial Supply Company v. Goen, 58 N.M. 738, 276 P.2d 509 (1954). We agree that duplication of damages is improper and that the \u201cleast burdensome\u201d approach is proper. However, neither concept applies to this case.\nThe plaintiffs were entitled to recover the difference between the value of the residence and the value represented at the time of the sale. This was the $35,000.00 (item 3). In addition, they were entitled to recover special damages. The $5,000.00 and $10,000.00 items (items 4 and 5) were special damages. Industrial Supply Company v. Goen; see Goldie v. Yaker, 78 N.M. 485, 432 P.2d 841 (1967); compare Robison v. Katz, 94 N.M. 314, 610 P.2d 201 (Ct.App.1980). Items 4 and 5, as special damages, were not included in the value of the residence because they involved work needed to prevent additional damage with a resultant additional decrease in value if corrective work was not done.\nThe compensatory damage award is affirmed.\nPunitive Damages\nThe punitive damage award was for $5,000.00. The defendants challenge the propriety of this award, asserting there was no intentional, malicious or grossly negligent misrepresentation and, therefore, the punitive damage award is not supported by substantial evidence.\nThe trial court found that the defendants knew of the subterranean water problem and intentionally withheld that information from the plaintiffs in total disregard of the lawful and comfortable use of the property by the plaintiffs. Substantial evidence supports this finding. The trial court concluded that the defendants\u2019 actions were intentional, willful and wanton. See Ruiz v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co., 97 N.M. 194, 638 P.2d 406 (Ct.App.1981).\nThe punitive damage award is affirmed.\nSet-off\nAs a part of the purchase price, the plaintiffs executed a promissory note in the amount of $44,979.19 bearing interest on the unpaid principal balance at the rate of 10% per annum. The plaintiffs paid the $15,000.00 payment on or before October 1, 1980 as provided, but have made no other payments.\nThe trial court awarded a set-off against the plaintiffs\u2019 judgment \u201cin the amount of $30,000 that remains owing on the promissory note.\u201d\nThe defendants state there is no evidence to support the finding that the amount owing on the note is $30,000.00. We agree; the testimony as to the amount owing was $29,979.19, plus unpaid interest. What the trial court did was disallow interest; the discrepancy in the principal amount favors the defendants, thus they may not complain of the discrepancy.\nThe defendants claim the trial court should have allowed interest in accordance with the terms of the note. The trial court\u2019s decision reflects the basis for disallowing the interest. The defendants requested a finding that the amount owing, including accrued interest through July 1, 1982 was $36,549.01. This requested finding was refused. The plaintiffs requested a finding that the parties agreed that there would be no interest charged during the pendency of the action. This requested finding was also refused. The trial court found that the defendants did not take the promissory note in good faith. The defendants had counterclaimed for the amount allegedly owed on the note and for sale of the real property securing payment of the note. The trial court refused all relief on the counterclaim, concluding that it should be dismissed with prejudice. Thus the effect given to the promissory note by the trial court was that the note evidenced the plaintiffs\u2019 indebtedness for $30,000.00 of the purchase price.\nIn disallowing interest on the note, the trial court applied equitable considerations. The defendants should not receive interest on a note that they did not take in good faith. The defendants should not receive interest on the unpaid portion of a purchase price agreed to by the plaintiffs who had been intentionally deceived by the defendants. The trial court could properly disallow interest on this basis. See O\u2019Meara v. Commercial Insurance Company, 71 N.M. 145, 376 P.2d 486 (1962); State Trust and Savings Bank v. Hermosa Land and Cattle Co., 30 N.M. 566, 240 P. 469 (1925). Compare Shaeffer v. Kelton, 95 N.M. 182, 619 P.2d 1226 (1980); State ex rel. Conley Lott Nichols Machinery Company v. Safeco Insurance Company of America, 100 N.M. 440, 671 P.2d 1151, 22 SBB 1130 (Ct.App.1983).\nThe amount of the set-off was not error.\nThe judgment is affirmed. The defendants shall bear their appellate costs.\nIT IS SO ORDERED.\nLOPEZ and DONNELLY, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "WOOD, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "George F. Stevens, Robinson, Stevens & Wainright, P.A., Albuquerque, for defendants-counter-claimants-appellants Lawson.",
      "Farrell L. Lines, Lamb, Metzgar & Lines, P.A., Albuquerque, for plaintiffs-counter-defendants-appellees Newcum."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "672 P.2d 1143\nMichael R. and Debra R. NEWCUM, Plaintiffs-Counter-defendants-Appellees, v. L.E. LAWSON and Bernadine Lawson, Defendants-Counter-claimants-Appellants.\nNo. 6062.\nCourt of Appeals of New Mexico.\nNov. 3, 1983.\nGeorge F. Stevens, Robinson, Stevens & Wainright, P.A., Albuquerque, for defendants-counter-claimants-appellants Lawson.\nFarrell L. Lines, Lamb, Metzgar & Lines, P.A., Albuquerque, for plaintiffs-counter-defendants-appellees Newcum."
  },
  "file_name": "0512-01",
  "first_page_order": 544,
  "last_page_order": 546
}