{ "id": 2861602, "name": "Bobby L. and Tana LEWALLEN, his wife, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. ELMORE MOBILE HOMES, INC., a New Mexico Corporation, Carson Elmore, Individually, and Western Surety Company, Defendants-Appellees", "name_abbreviation": "Lewallen v. Elmore Mobile Homes, Inc.", "decision_date": "1976-06-15", "docket_number": "No. 2421", "first_page": "323", "last_page": "324", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "89 N.M. 323" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "551 P.2d 1370" } ], "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": "539 P.2d 1366", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.2d", "year": 1975, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "87 N.M. 425", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 2833190 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/87/0425-01" ] }, { "cite": "74 N.M. 760", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 2800988 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1964, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/74/0760-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 255, "char_count": 3460, "ocr_confidence": 0.786, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.621887471290392e-08, "percentile": 0.28952286407431477 }, "sha256": "03951572cd8a803178f07f9e963c8898de9021287f92a4b3297072c411ead090", "simhash": "1:9f7b294173845a61", "word_count": 561 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:56:52.908635+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "HENDLEY and LOPEZ, JJ., concur." ], "parties": [ "Bobby L. and Tana LEWALLEN, his wife, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. ELMORE MOBILE HOMES, INC., a New Mexico Corporation, Carson Elmore, Individually, and Western Surety Company, Defendants-Appellees." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "OPINION\nWOOD, Chief Judge.\nPlaintiffs purchased a two-bedroom mobile home. Section 64-8-6, N.M.S.A. 1953 (2d Repl. Vol. 9, pt. 2) requires that licensed dealers be bonded. The 1975 amendment to \u00a7 64-8-6, supra, is not applicable. There is no issue as to whether a licensed dealer was involved. The appeal involves the applicability of the statutory bond to the purchase. The dispositive issue is whether the statutory bond covers the purchase of a mobile home.\nPlaintiffs sued Elmore Mobile Homes, Inc. and Carson Elmore on various grounds. One ground alleged fraudulent misrepresentations concerning the quality of the mobile home and its fitness and suitability for living quarters. Alleging that fraudulent misrepresentations had been made, plaintiffs sued Western Surety Company on the basis that it issued the statutory bond. The trial court dismissed the claim against Western Surety Company for failure of plaintiffs to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Plaintiffs appeal.\nSection 64-8-6, supra, states:\n\u201cThe bond shall be . conditioned upon payment of any loss, damage and expense sustained by the purchaser . by reason of failure of the title of the vendor, by any fraudulent misrepresentations or by any breach of warranty as to freedom from liens on the motor vehicle sold by the dealer\nWestern Surety Company asserts that \u00a7 64-8-6, supra, does not apply to the purchase of mobile homes. We agree.\nSection 64-8-6, supra, refers to the \u201cmotor vehicle sold\u201d. This statute was enacted by Laws 1961, ch. 109. The title to this act states that it relates to motor vehicles. The statute was amended by Laws 1971, ch. 186, \u00a7 2. The title to the amending act states that it relates to motor vehicles. The bond requirements of \u00a7 64-8-6, supra, apply only to the sale of motor vehicles. Compare, Gallegos v. Wallace, 74 N.M. 760, 398 P.2d 982 (1964); City of Las Cruces v. Davis, 87 N.M. 425, 535 P.2d 68 (Ct.App.1975).\nMotor vehicle is defined in Paragraph B of \u00a7 64-1-6, N.M.S.A. 1953 (2d Repl. Vol. 9, pt. 2, Supp. 1975) to mean self-propelled vehicles and vehicles propelled by electric power obtained from overhead trolley wires. Paragraph A of \u00a7 64-1-6, supra, defines \u201cvehicle\u201d in terms of a device by which persons or property may be transported or drawn upon a highway.\nSection 64-1-8, N.M.S.A. 1953 (2d Repl. Vol. 9, pt. 2, Supp. 1975) defines trailers. Paragraph E defines a mobile home to mean a house trailer. Paragraph D defines a house trailer to include a vehicle without motive power designed or used as a mobile home.\nA mobile home, being without motive power, cannot be. a motor vehicle within the meaning of \u00a7 64-l-6(B), supra.\nOral argument is unnecessary. The trial court correctly dismissed plaintiffs\u2019 claim against Western Surety Company because the bond requirements of \u00a7 64-8-6, supra, do not apply to mobile homes. The order of dismissal is affirmed. Compare, Shaw v. Aurora Mobile Homes and Real Estate, Inc., 539 P.2d 1366 (Colo.Ct.App. 1975).\nIT IS SO ORDERED.\nHENDLEY and LOPEZ, JJ., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "WOOD, Chief Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "John S. Campbell, Alburquerque, for plaintiffs-appellants.", "Peter H. Johnstone, Keleher & McLeod, Albuquerque, for defendant-appellee Western Surety Co." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "551 P.2d 1370\nBobby L. and Tana LEWALLEN, his wife, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. ELMORE MOBILE HOMES, INC., a New Mexico Corporation, Carson Elmore, Individually, and Western Surety Company, Defendants-Appellees.\nNo. 2421.\nCourt of Appeals of New Mexico.\nJune 15, 1976.\nJohn S. Campbell, Alburquerque, for plaintiffs-appellants.\nPeter H. Johnstone, Keleher & McLeod, Albuquerque, for defendant-appellee Western Surety Co." }, "file_name": "0323-01", "first_page_order": 359, "last_page_order": 360 }