{ "id": 717019, "name": "Kathleen KUEFFER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. William C. KUEFFER and Santa Fe Design Associates, Inc., a New Mexico corporation, Defendants-Appellees", "name_abbreviation": "Kueffer v. Kueffer", "decision_date": "1990-05-03", "docket_number": "No. 18710", "first_page": "10", "last_page": "13", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "110 N.M. 10" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "791 P.2d 461" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.M.", "id": 8835, "name": "Supreme Court of New Mexico" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 52, "name_long": "New Mexico", "name": "N.M." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "675 F.2d 1108", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.2d", "case_ids": [ 1175676 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1110" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f2d/675/1108-01" ] }, { "cite": "771 P.2d 981", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.2d", "year": 1989, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "108 N.M. 273", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "year": 1989, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "108 N.M. 385", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 1592877 ], "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "386" }, { "page": "1309" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/108/0385-01" ] }, { "cite": "103 N.M. 415", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 711398 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1985, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "420" }, { "page": "332" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/103/0415-01" ] }, { "cite": "105 N.M. 508", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 1599060 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1987, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "513" }, { "page": "753" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/105/0508-01" ] }, { "cite": "106 N.M. 279", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 707698 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1987, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "283" }, { "page": "495" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/106/0279-01" ] }, { "cite": "767 F.2d 690", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.2d", "case_ids": [ 348922 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "696" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f2d/767/0690-01" ] }, { "cite": "103 N.M. 480", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 711359 ], "weight": 4, "year": 1985, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "488" }, { "page": "657" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/103/0480-01" ] }, { "cite": "102 N.M. 560", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 1580059 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1985, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "562" }, { "page": "432" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/102/0560-01" ] }, { "cite": "106 N.M. 781", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 708373 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1988, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "783" }, { "page": "1109" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/106/0781-01" ] }, { "cite": "102 N.M. 286", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 1580087 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1985, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "291" }, { "page": "1356" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/102/0286-01" ] }, { "cite": "106 N.M. 243", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 708805 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1987, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "245" }, { "page": "1366" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/106/0243-01" ] }, { "cite": "104 N.M. 385", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 1594944 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1986, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "387" }, { "page": "638" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/104/0385-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 587, "char_count": 10882, "ocr_confidence": 0.781, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.8115540418020448e-07, "percentile": 0.717862508586408 }, "sha256": "87dc5c42e9cee14bdb1cb8aaff18807bba73e08787e88593543d1cc98c13743f", "simhash": "1:31a2111bb2c9d2b5", "word_count": 1736 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:33:30.469339+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "SOSA, C.J., and MONTGOMERY, J., concur." ], "parties": [ "Kathleen KUEFFER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. William C. KUEFFER and Santa Fe Design Associates, Inc., a New Mexico corporation, Defendants-Appellees." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "OPINION\nWILSON, Justice.\nKathleen Kueffer (Ms. Kueffer), plaintiff-appellant, sued her former husband William C. Kueffer (Mr. Kueffer) and Santa Fe Design Associates, Inc. (SFDA), defendants-appellees, for breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty. The trial court found that Mr. Kueffer breached the contract but did not breach a fiduciary duty to Ms. Kueffer. The court entered judgment for Ms. Kueffer on the breach of contract claim and awarded her compensatory damages; however, the court refused to award her punitive damages and prejudgment interest on that claim. Ms. Kueffer appeals the court\u2019s judgment and we affirm in part and reverse in part. FACTS\nThe Kueffers\u2019 marriage was dissolved by partial decree on July 10,1987. The decree did not divide the couple\u2019s community assets and debts. The Kueffers divided those items by a written contract (the Kueffer contract) which provided that: (1) Mr. Kueffer would receive the couple\u2019s interests in SFDA and would hold Ms. Kueffer harmless for SFDA debts incurred after July 1987; (2) the couple would divide equally their sixty-four percent interest in net proceeds from a contract between SFDA and John Conron (the Conron contract); (3) Mr. Kueffer would manage the couple\u2019s interest in the Conron contract as a fiduciary; and (4) Mr. Kueffer would only deduct costs related to the Conron Development Project (the Project) from Ms. Kueffer\u2019s share of the gross proceeds from the Conron property\u2019s sale. The Kueffer contract defined \u201cnet proceeds\u201d as \u201climited to the funds or land received, pursuant to the [Conron Contract], less any claim Conron has been paid arising from the actual [Conron Property Development Project].\u201d\nWhen the Kueffers negotiated their contract Mr. Kueffer was aware of plans to sell the Conron property, including the couple\u2019s interest in that property. SFDA then had several outstanding debts, including delinquent gross receipts taxes, an architectural fee, and a loan. During the contract negotiations, Mr. Kueffer represented that SFDA had a zero net value and that the couple\u2019s interest in the Conron contract had no value.\nOn December 13, 1988, the Conron property sold and SFDA\u2019s share of the sale proceeds was $155,000. In dividing these proceeds, Mr. Kueffer\u2019s accountant determined that Ms. Kueffer was entitled to thirty-two percent of the net proceeds. He defined \u201cnet proceeds\u201d as gross less offsets related to the Project. He then deducted two costs related to the Project: $12,912.73 for a hydrological test and $7,566.78 for a gross receipts tax. Also deducted from the gross proceeds were amounts for SFDA\u2019s outstanding debts noted above. After these deductions the gross proceeds equalled $82,570.33. On February 23, 1989, Mr. Kueffer through SFDA paid Ms. Kueffer $26,423.15 as her share of the net sale proceeds after the above deductions. On February 27, 1989, Ms. Kueffer filed a complaint against Mr. Kueffer and SFDA for breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty based on the defendants\u2019 alleged failure to distribute to her the \u201cnet sale proceeds\u201d as defined in the Kueffer contract. She sought specific performance of the contract or money damages, plus punitive damages, costs, interest, and attorney fees. The defendants sought dismissal of the complaint with prejudice, claiming Ms. Kueffer was liable for SFDA debts incurred prior to July 1987, and the net sale proceeds were properly distributed to her under the contract.\nThe trial court found that Mr. Kueffer breached the contract by improperly deducting amounts for SFDA\u2019s outstanding, debts from Ms. Kueffer\u2019s share of the net sale proceeds; however, he did not breach a fiduciary duty since the Kueffer contract was ambiguous and he acted in good faith. On August 2, 1989, the trial court entered its final judgment awarding Ms. Kueffer damages of $16,623.40 plus fifteen percent interest; representing her share of the net sale proceeds ($43,076.56) minus funds previously received ($26,423.15). The court denied Ms. Kueffer\u2019s claims for prejudgment interest, punitive damages, costs and fees. The defendants paid Ms. Kueffer $18,-112.18 in satisfaction of this judgment. Ms. Kueffer appeals.\nISSUES\nOn appeal Ms. Kueffer argues that substantial evidence does not support the trial court\u2019s failure to:\n(1) award prejudgment interest on the breach of contract claim;\n(2) award punitive damages on the breach of contract claim; and\n(3) find that Mr. Kueffer breached his fiduciary duty to Ms. Kueffer.\nWe review each issue in turn.\nIn determining whether substantial evidence supports the trial court\u2019s decision we resolve all disputed facts in favor of the prevailing party and indulge all reasonable inferences in support of the decision, disregarding all inferences or evidence to the contrary. Brannock v. Brannock, 104 N.M. 385, 387, 722 P.2d 636, 638 (1986). Substantial evidence is evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Register v. Roberson Constr. Co., 106 N.M. 243, 245, 741 P.2d 1364, 1366 (1987). Trial court findings supported by substantial evidence will not be overturned on appeal. Elephant Butte Resort Marina, Inc. v. Wooldridge, 102 N.M. 286, 291, 694 P.2d 1351, 1356 (1985).\n1. Prejudgment Interest\nMs. Kueffer claims the trial court erred in failing to award prejudgment interest on the breach of contract claim from the date the proceeds were distributed to the date of judgment. An injured party is entitled to prejudgment interest as a matter of right when the amount due under the contract can be ascertained with reasonable certainty by a mathematical standard fixed in the contract or by established market prices. Bill McCarty Constr. Co. v. Seegee Eng\u2019g Co., 106 N.M. 781, 783, 750 P.2d 1107, 1109 (1988); Grynberg v. Roberts, 102 N.M. 560, 562, 698 P.2d 430, 432 (1985). When the contractual debt owed is ascertainable by these means the legal annual interest rate, presently fifteen percent, applies. Id.; see also NMSA 1978, \u00a7 56-8-3 (Repl.Pamp.1986). The trial court has discretion to award prejudgment interest, if justice requires, when the contract amount is not ascertainable by the above means. United Nuclear Corp. v. Allendale Mut. Ins. Co., 103 N.M. 480, 488, 709 P.2d 649, 657 (1985). A mere difference of opinion as to the amount owed will not relieve the breaching party from liability for prejudgment interest. Id. Prejudgment interest is meant to compensate a plaintiff for injuries resulting from the defendant\u2019s failure to pay and the loss of use and earning power of plaintiff\u2019s funds expended as a result of the defendant\u2019s breach. Id.\nIn this case, the Kueffer contract contained a mathematical standard defining the \u201cnet proceeds\u201d due Ms. Kueffer. There is no question that the amount owed was ascertainable by using this standard and subtracting the appropriate costs from the sale proceeds. The fact that Mr. Kueffer disagrees with the allowable deductions from the sale proceeds does not alter this fact. We conclude that Mr. Kueffer used and retained Ms. Kueffer\u2019s money without her consent, contrary to Section 56-8-3(B), and must pay fifteen percent annual interest. To rule otherwise would allow Mr. Kueffer to avoid paying prejudgment interest merely by contesting the amount owed and permit him to use Ms. Kueffer\u2019s money free of charge. We reverse the trial court on this point and remand with instructions to enter judgment for Ms. Kueffer for fifteen percent annual prejudgment interest from the date of distribution to the date of judgment.\n2. Punitive Damages\nMs. Kueffer also claims the trial court erred in failing to award punitive damages on her breach of contract claim. Under New Mexico law, a plaintiff cannot recover punitive damages for breach of contract unless that breach is \u201c \u2018maliciously intentional, fraudulent or oppressive, or committed recklessly or with a wanton disregard of the rights of the plaintiff.\u2019 \u201d Art Janpol Volkswagen, Inc. v. Fiat Motors, Inc., 767 F.2d 690, 696 (10th Cir.1985) (citation omitted). See also SCRA 1986, 13-1827; Boudar v. E.G. & G., Inc., 106 N.M. 279, 283, 742 P.2d 491, 495 (1987). An award of punitive damages is within the trial court\u2019s discretion. New Mexico Hosp. Ass\u2019n v. A.T. & S.F. Memorial Hosp., Inc., 105 N.M. 508, 513, 734 P.2d 748, 753 (1987). A trial court abuses its discretion when its decision is contrary to logic and reason under the circumstances. Newsome v. Farer, 103 N.M. 415, 420, 708 P.2d 327, 332 (1985); Martinez v. Ponderosa Prod., Inc., 108 N.M. 385, 386, 772 P.2d 1308, 1309 (Ct.App.), cert. denied, 108 N.M. 273, 771 P.2d 981 (1989).\nIn this case, Mr. Kueffer testified that since the contract exempted Ms. Kueffer from liability for SFDA debts arising after July 1987, he assumed that she would remain jointly liable for SFDA debts incurred prior to that time and that he could properly deduct such debts from the sale proceeds prior to distribution. There is no evidence that Mr. Kueffer\u2019s interpretation of the contract was intentionally malicious, oppressive, reckless, or in wanton disregard of Ms. Kueffer\u2019s rights. We agree that the contract was ambiguous and his interpretation of it, though mistaken, did not render him liable for punitive damages. We affirm the trial court\u2019s denial of punitive damages as substantial evidence did not support such an award.\n3. Breach of Fiduciary Duty\nMs. Kueffer next claims the trial court erred in failing to find Mr. Kueffer breached a fiduciary duty to her, even if he acted in good faith. A fiduciary is obliged \u201cto act primarily for another\u2019s benefit in matters connected with such undertaking.\u201d Black\u2019s Law Dictionary 563 (5th ed. 1979). A fiduciary breaches this duty by placing his interests above those of the beneficiary. Gelfand v. Horizon Corp., 675 F.2d 1108, 1110 (10th Cir.1982).\nMr. Kueffer was obliged to protect Ms. Kueffer\u2019s interests in the sale proceeds. The record contains substantial evidence supporting the trial court\u2019s finding that Mr. Kueffer\u2019s deduction of SFDA costs from Ms. Kueffer\u2019s share of the proceeds was due to his interpretation of the contract and did not result from a subordination of Ms. Kueffer\u2019s interests. We affirm the trial court on this issue.\nCONCLUSION\nWe reverse the trial court\u2019s refusal to award prejudgment interest and remand for action consistent with this decision. We affirm the court on the other issues presented. The parties will bear their own costs on appeal.\nIT SO ORDERED.\nSOSA, C.J., and MONTGOMERY, J., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "WILSON, Justice." } ], "attorneys": [ "Levy & Geer, Robert D. Levy, Albuquerque, for plaintiff-appellant.", "Herrera, Baird & Ares, Leland G. Ares, Santa Fe, for defendants-appellees." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "791 P.2d 461\nKathleen KUEFFER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. William C. KUEFFER and Santa Fe Design Associates, Inc., a New Mexico corporation, Defendants-Appellees.\nNo. 18710.\nSupreme Court of New Mexico.\nMay 3, 1990.\nRehearing Denied May 23, 1990.\nLevy & Geer, Robert D. Levy, Albuquerque, for plaintiff-appellant.\nHerrera, Baird & Ares, Leland G. Ares, Santa Fe, for defendants-appellees." }, "file_name": "0010-01", "first_page_order": 46, "last_page_order": 49 }