1 IN TH E COURT OF APPEALS O F THE ST ATE OF NEW MEXICO

2 O pin ionN um

be r: ___

____ ____ 3 Fi lin g D at e: Ja nua ry

6, 201 4 4 N O. 32, 510 5 LEA CO UN TY STA TE BA NK, 6 Plaintif

f-A ppellee , 7 v. 8 MARKUM RANCH PARTNERSHI P, 9 a New Mexico Gener al Partn ership, BU RRELL 10 MARKUM an d ELI Z ABETH MARKUM, 11 hu sb an d an d w if

e, in di vid ua lly an d as 12 general part ners t o Markum Ranc h and, 13 BR A N D ON M A R KU M , in di vid ua lly an d as 14 general part ner to Markum Ranc h, and 15 KAT HRY N Y ATE R f /k /a KATH RY N M AR KUM , 16 D ef

en da nts -Appe llants

. 17 AP PE AL FR OM T HE D ISTRICT C OUR T OF LEACO UN TY 18 M ar k T. S an ch ez , D ist ri ctJu dg e 19 Arla nd & Ass oc ia te s, LLC 20 W illiam

J. A rland III 21 Aletheia V .P . A llen 22 Alb uq ue rq ue , NM 23 for Appellee1 Tucker

Law F irm , P .C. 2 Steven L . T ucker 3 San ta Fe, NM 4 T em ple m an& Cr

utc hf ie ld 5 Jam es E . T em

plem an 6 Lov in gt on , NM 7 fo r A ppe llants1 OPIN ION

2 GAR CIA , Jud ge. 3 { 1} T his c as e inv olv es thr ee se pa ra te pr om iss or y not es be tw ee n L ea Co unt y S ta te 4 Bank (th e Bank) and the Markum Ranch Partnership (the Ranch) and its th ree 5 pa rtne r s , B ur

r e l l M ar k u m ( B ur r e ll) , E liz ab eth M ar

kum ( E liz ab eth) , Br an don Mark um 6 (Bra ndon ), a s w el l a s on e non- pa rtne r guaranto r, K athr yn M ar kum ( K athr yn) 7 (c oll ec tiv el y , A ppe llants ). A ppe llants a ppe al the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s or de r gr an tin g 8 s u m m ar y ju d g m en ti n fa v o r o f t h e B an k . Ap p el l an t s n o l o n g erd i s p u t e t h e B an k ’s 9 ab ili tyto e n f

o r c e o n e o f t h e p r o m i s s o ry n o t e s . T h e y a r g u e t h a t t h e s t a tu t e of 10 li m it at io ns b a rred th e Ban k’s cl ai m s ag ai ns t t he m reg ard in g t he rem ai ni ng two 11 pr om iss or

y not es . T he Bank arg ue s th at the sta tut e of lim ita tio ns for its cl ai m s a ga ins t 12 A ppe llants w as r ev ive d w he n th e Ranc h so ld its re al pr ope rty in 2006 an d 2008 a nd 13 pa id the pr oc ee ds o f tho se sa le s to the Ba nk. W e co nc lud e tha t t he 200 6 a nd 2 008 14 pa ym en ts r ev ive d th e Bank’ s c la im s a ga ins t t he Ranc h a nd i ts thr ee pa rtne rs , 15 therefore , w e af

firm the summ ary

j udgm ent in that respect. W e further conclude that 16 the 2006 an d 2008 pay m en ts did not aut om at ic al ly r ev ive the Bank’ s c la im s a ga ins t 17 K athr yn, the re fo re w e re ve rs e the sum m ar y j udgm en t a ga ins t K athr

yn r eg ar din g th e 18 two disputed p rom issory notes and rem and this m atter to the dist rict court for further 1 9 p r o c e e d i n g s r e g a r d i n g Ka t h ryn ’s p e r s o n a l g u a r a n t y.2

1 I. BACKGRO UND 2 { 2} The district court granted summ ary j udgm ent in favor of the Bank. The actual 3 ba sis f or the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s de ci sio n a nd r uli ng w as not

c le ar ly sta te d. H ow ev er , the 4 fa ct s r el ev an t t o th e pr im ar y iss ue on a

ppe al –th e st at ut e of

li m ita tio ns–are not 5 dis put ed

by the pa rt ie s. I n A ugus t 19 99, Bu rr el l, E liz ab eth, a nd B randon —bu t no t 6 Ka thryn—agreed to be general partner s in the Ranch. I n Septem ber 1999, the Ranch 7 s i g n e d a p r o m i s s o ry n o t e s o t h a t i t c o u l d b o rr o w $ 3 2 5 , 0 0 0 f r o m t h e B a n k

. A bout a 8 m ont h la te r, the Ra

nc h si gne d ase co nd p ro m iss or y not e to bor

ro w a not he r $200 , 000 9 from the B a nk

. A nd i n M a y 20 00 , t he R a nc h si gn e d a t hi r d pr om i ss or y no t e f or a 10 $650 ,000 line of credit from the Bank. W e refer to these three notes indiv iduallyas 11 the $325 ,000 note, the $200,000 n ote, and the $6 50,000 no te. These thre e notes were 12 secured by

a m ortgage on the Ranch’ s real property and guaranties that we re signed 13 by Bu rr el l, E liz ab eth, Br an don, a nd K athr yn. 14 { 3} T he Ranc h de fa ult ed on a ll thre e no te s. T he pa rt ie s a gr ee tha t t he sta tut e of 15 lim ita tio ns s ta rt ed

to ru n onthe Bank’ s c la im to en fo rc e the $20 0, 000 not e whe n it 16 m at ur ed in 2 004 an d Appe llants ha d no t pa id i t of f. T he y a gr ee tha t t he sta tut e of 17 lim ita tio ns o n th e Bank’ s c la im to e nf or ce the $65 0, 000 not e start ed w he n th at

not e 18 m at ur ed in 2001

. A ppe llants nowc onc ed e tha t the Bank’ s c la im on the $32 5, 000 not e 19 is n ot ba rr ed

by the sta tut e of

li m ita tio ns b ec au se tha t no te w as not sc he dul ed

to3

1 m at ur e unti l 2014. T he re fo re , the y do not app ea l the sum m ar y j udgm en t rul ing as it 2 pertains to the $32 5,000 not e. 3 { 4} InO ct obe r 2006 , the Ranc h so ld p ar t of its r ea l pr ope rty . Bu rr el l, on b eh al f of 4 the Ranc h, sig ne d ase ttl em ent st ate m en t w he n th e sa le c los ed

. T his se ttl em en t 5 sta te m en t sh ow ed

tha t the ne t pr oc ee ds of

the sa le —a

bout $80 , 000—

w er e to b e pa id 6 to the Bank. I n M ay

200 8, the Ranc h so ld th e re st o f its r ea l pr ope rty . Bu rr el l, 7 Eliza beth, and Brandon signed th e settlem ent statem ent on behalf of the Ranch at that 8 sa le ’ s c los ing , a nd the ne t pr oc ee ds— ab out $382 , 680— w er e to be p ai d to the Bank. 9 A ft er both of the se sa le s, the Bank d istri but ed the ne t pr oc ee ds a m ong al l t hr ee of the 1 0 de b t s . T h e B a n k f

i l e d t h i s l a w s u i t i n 2 0 1 1 t o c o l l e c t t h e r e m a i n i n g b a l a n c e of the 11 de bts

. 12 { 5} T he f

oll ow ing c ha rt

sum m ar iz es the ti m e- lin e fo r the se e ve nts

. 13 Ye ar Event 1 4 1 9 9 9 B u rr e l l , E l i z ab e t h , a n dB r a n d o n b e c o me partners in the Ranch 15 1999 -2 000 T he Ranc h si gns the $32 5, 000, $20 0, 000, and $65 0,000 not es, a ll of which ar e secure d by am ortga ge on the Ranc h’ s r ea l pr ope rty an d gu ar an tie s si gne d by

Bu rr el l, E liz ab eth, B r a n d o n , a n dKa t h ryn4

1 2001 The $650,000 note m atures, Appellants are in d ef au lt, a nd the six -y ear sta tut e of lim ita tio ns s ta rt s to r

un o n th e Bank’ s r igh t to e nf or ce thi s no te 2 2004 The $200,000 note m atures, Appellants are in d ef au lt, a nd the six -y ear sta tut e of lim ita tio ns s ta rt s to r

un o n th e Bank’ s r igh t to e nf or ce thi s no te 3 2 0 0 6 Th e R a n c h s e l l s s o me o f i t s r e a l p r o p e rt y; Bu rr el l si gns the se ttl em en t st at em en t on be ha lf of the Ranc h sh ow ing tha t t he ne t sa le pr oc ee ds w ill be pa id t o th e Bank and the Bank a ppl ie s th e pr oc ee ds t o th e ba la nc es on all three notes 4 2 0 0 8 Th e R a n c h s e l l s t h e r e s to f i t s r e a l p r o p e rt y; Bu rr el l, Br an don, a nd E liz ab eth si gn the settlem ent statem ent on behalf of the Ranch show ing tha t t he ne t sa le pr oc ee ds w ill be pa id t o th e Bank and the Bank a ppl ie s th e proceeds to the balances on all three notes 5 2011 T he Bank f ile s th is l aw sui t a ga ins t t he Appellants to collect the rem aining b alance of debts on all th ree notes 6 { 6} Bo th the Bank and Appe llants m ove d f or sum m ar y j udgm en t. A ppe llants 7 co nte nde d th at

the sta tut e of

li m ita tio ns h ad

r un o n th e Bank’ s c la im s. D ur ing a 8 hearing on these m otion s, the district c ourt discussed the statute of lim itations issue, 9 and it asked the parties to file supplem ental briefs addressing certain issues of law 10 in this r eg ar d th at

w er e not a de qua te ly

a ddr es se d inthe pa rt ie s’ sum m ar y j udgm en t 11 m oti ons. T he dis tr ic t c ourt eve ntu al ly e nte re d a n or de r gr an tin g su m m ar y j udgm en t5

1 in f a vo r of t he B a nk bu t di d no t e xp l a i n t he ba si s f or i t s de c i si on i n that order. 2 T he re af

te r, the dis tr ic t cour

t signe d a fina l j udgm en t pre pa re d by the Bank’ s c ouns el

. 3 The district court’ s judgm ent included detailed finding s regarding factual issues that 4 ha d be endis put ed

dur ing the su m m ary judg m en t pr oc ee din gs, a nd i t c ont ai ne d no 5 m ention o f the statute of lim itation s issue. Unf ortunately , this ruling created 6 co m pli ca tio ns f

or the pa rt ie s a nd this Co urt onappe al

. 7 { 7} The per

tinent iss ues in this appeal ar e: (1) w hether the Ranch’ s partial 8 paym ents to the Bank from the 2006 and 2008 sales of t he Ranch’ s real propertyre9 start ed the sta tut e of

li m ita tio ns o n th e Bank’ s c la im s a ga ins t t he Ranc h, a nd ( 2) 10 w he the r the 200 6 a nd 2 008 pa ym en ts a lso r ev iv ed the sta tut e of

li m ita tio ns o n th e 1 1 B a n k ’s r i g h tt o e n f

o r c e Ka t h ryn ’s g u a r a n t y. 12 { 8} A ppe llants a lso r ai se d se v e r a l a l t e r n at i v e i s s u e s o na

ppe al

. T he se iss ue s in cl ude 13 whether oral statem ents allegedly m ad e b y Burre ll to the Bank created a dispu ted 14 fa ct ua l i ssu e as to th e Bank ’ s e qui ta ble e sto ppe l c la im , w he the r A ppe llants ’ 15 adm iss ion s of ce rt ai n fa ct s indis co ve ry c onst itu te d aw ri tte n a cknow le dgm en t of the 16 de bts und er

the r ev iva l st at

ute , a nd w he th er a pa ym en t m ad e by Br an don in 2 009 17 revived the statute of lim itations as to the $650 ,000 note. Base d upo n the und isput ed 18 fa ct s, thi s C ourt can sti ll pa rt ia lly a ff irm the sum m ar y j udgm en t r

uli ng i n f av or of the 19 Bank. Be ca

use the 200 6 a nd 2 008 pa ym en ts f ro m the ne t pr oc ee ds r ec ei ve d f ro m the6

1 sale of the Ranch’ s real property revived the statute of l im itations against the Ranch 2 and its thre e partners, summ ary j udgm ent against the Ranch and its three partners c an 3 be a ff irm ed

. A s ar es ult , it

is not ne ce ssary

to ad dr es s th e al te rn at ive iss ue s be ca use 4 the y w oul d no t c ha nge the out co m e on a ppe al

. 5 II. DISC US SION 6 A. Stand ard of R eview 7 { 9} W e re view a d is tri ct co ur t’s o rd er g ran ti ng su m m ary jud gm en t d e n ov o. Ju ne au 8 v. I nte l C orp. , 20 06

- N M S C

- 00 2, ¶ 8, 13 9 N

. M

. 12 , 12 7 P

. 3d 54 8. “ Sum m ary 9 j udgm en t i s a

ppr opr ia te w he re the re a re no g enuin e iss ue s of m at er ia l f

ac t a nd the 10 m ovant is entitled to j udgm ent as a m atter of law. ” Jo sli n v . G re gory , 20 03 -NMCA11 133, ¶ 6, 134 N.M. 527, 80 P.3d 464 (internal quo tation m arks and citation om itted). 12 Whe re “ the f

ac ts u nde rl y ing th e app lic at ionof the sta tut e of

li m ita tio ns and the 13 re viv al sta tut e ar e undi sput ed , w e re vie w [ a] pa rt ia l paym en t i ssu e as apur e que sti on 14 of law .” Id

. W e rev ie w is su es of s ta tu to ry in te rp ret at io n d e n ov o. Li ttl e v. J ac obs , 15 2014 -N MCA -105, ¶ 7, 336 P.3d 398. And “ when deter m ining the m ea n i n g of a 16 sta tut e, c ourts w il l oft enc onstru e the la ngua ge in lig ht o f the pr ee xis tin g c om m on 17 law. ” Si ms v. S ims , 199 6- NMSC- 078, ¶ 23, 122 N

. M. 618 , 930 P

. 2d 1 53 ( “ T he 18 com m on law fills in gaps not add ressed by a statute.” ).7

1 B. The F inal Judgm ent 2 { 10} In their briefs, both Appella nts and th e Bank discuss the content of the final 3 j udgm en t ent er ed by the dis tr ic t cour t. A ppe llants a rg ue tha t t he j udgm en t’ s f ind ing s 4 co nta in d isp ute d f

ac ts, a lon g w ith its la ck of an y le ga l co nc lus ion s ab out the sta tut e 5 of li m ita tio ns o r the vol unt ar ine ss o f the 2006 an d 2008 pa ym en ts, e sta bli sh tha t the 6 district court im

properly granted summ ar y j udgm ent. T he Bank argues that 7 Appel l a nt s c a nn ot c ha l l e ng e t he c on t e nt of t he f i na l j ud gm e nt on app e a l a f t e r they 8 ha ve appr ove d it

in the di str ic t c ourt. W e not e tha t t he dis tr ic t c ourt di re ct ed the 9 Bank’ s counsel to “ prepare the form of j udgm ent consist ent with [its sum m ary 10 j udgm en t] or de r . . . a nd p ro pose it to [Appe llants ’ ] c ounsel

. . . f or a ppr ova l a s to 11 f or m [

. ] ” T hu s, w e a r e n ot

p e r su a de d by

t he B a nk ’ s a r gu m e nt

t ha tA pp e l l a nt s a re 12 boun d by

fac tual finding s that the Bank’ s counsel in cluded in th e j udgm ent that are 1 3 inc onsi s t e n tw i t h t h e o r d e r ’ s c o n c l u s i o n t h a t “ t h e r e i s n o g e n u i n e i s s u e a s t o a ny 14 m at er ia l fa ct [. ] ” W e ag re e w ith A ppe llants tha t it is dif fi cu lt to re conc il e why the 15 district court would e nter an order granting sum m ary j udgm ent that m akes no legal 16 co n clusion s, and then enter a final j udgm ent that contains findings about dis puted 17 fa ct ua l i ssu es an d om its the c or e iss ue r ai se d du ri ng the sum m ar y j udgm en t 18 pr oc ee din gs—

w he the r the sta tut e of

li m ita tio ns h ad ru n on the Bank’ s c la im s. 19 H ow ev er , w e ne ed

not f urthe r ad dr es s the co nte nt o f the sum m ar y j udgm en t or de r an d8

1 the final j udgm ent because w e re view the district cou rt’ s decision to grant summ ary 2 j udgm ent de novo , and the dispu ted facts that Appellants p oint to in the judgm ent are 3 no t m at eri al to ou r res ol ut io n o f th e cas e. See Ju ne au , 200 6- N MS C- 002, ¶ 8; Scott v. 4 M urph y Co rp. , 1968 -N MS C- 185, ¶ 10, 79 N

. M. 697 , 448 P

. 2d 8 03 ( sta tin g th at the 5 reason for a

trial court’ s decision o n a m atter of l aw

— in [that] case, a direc ted 6 verdict—is imm aterial bec ause “ [i] t is hornbo ok law that the decision of a trial court 7 will be upheld if it is right for any rea son”). 8 C. Re viva l of the Statu te of L im itations by P artial Paym ent 9 { 11} T he ap pli ca

ble sta tut e of lim ita tio ns o n a ct ion s in vol vin g pr om iss or y not es is 10 six y ears. NMS A 1978, § 37-1-3(A ) (1975). O ne way to revive an action on a contract 11 an d e xte nd the sta tut e of lim ita tio ns is “ by the m ak ing of an y pa rt ia l

. . . pa ym en t” on 12 th e co nt ract

. See N MS A 1978 , § 37-1 -1 6 (195 7)

. Whe n a debt is re viv ed , the sta tut e 13 of li m it at io ns st art s an ew. See § 37-1 -1 6 ( sta tin g th at “ [s ] uc h ac au se of

a ct ionsha ll 14 be de em ed

to ha ve a cc ru ed

up on th e da te of

suc h part ia l .

. . pa ym en t” ); Corona v. 15 Co rona , 2014 -N MC A -0 71, ¶ 12, 329 P. 3d 7 01 ( re co gni zi ng tha t r ev iva l c au se s th e 16 sta tut e of

li m it at io ns cloc k to “ ru n[ ] a ne w ”)

. A lth ough the te rm “ re viv al ” sugg es ts 17 that the thing being revived has “ expired[,] ” se e B lac k’ s L awD ic tio nary151 5 ( 10t h 18 ed. 2 01 4) , o ur c as e la w a nd o the r le ga l auth or iti es a re c le ar tha t “ re viv al ” w orks t o17 O the r sim ilar te rm s f or “ re viv al ” suc h a s “ re ne w , ” “ re start , ” an d “ tol lin g” 1 18 are utilized bythe various autho rities cited through out th is case. W e have lim ited 19 th e u se of t he se si m il ar t erm s as m uc h a s p os si bl e. 9 1 re start the ru nni ng of

the sta tut e of

li m ita tio ns b ef

or e, a s w el l a s a ft er , the sta tut e of 1 2 li m it at io ns ha s ex pi red

. Se e D av is v

. Sav age , 194 6- N MS C- 011, ¶ 28, 50 N

. M. 30, 168 3 P. 2d 8 51 ( “ Inc onsi de ri ng the r ev iva l of c au se s of

a ct ionupo n th e ind eb te dne ss b y 4 acknowledgm ent th at the debt is unp aid, .

. . it is genera lly regar ded as im

m aterial 5 w he the r the a ck

now le dgm en t pr ec ed es or f oll ow s th e ba r. ”) ; R om er o v. Hop ewe ll , 6 1922 -N MSC- 037, ¶ 26, 28 N .M. 259, 210 P. 231 (stating th at N ew Mexico’ s revival 7 statute “ applies . .

. to adm iss i o n s o r newprom ises m ade before the debt becom es 8 ba rr ed a s [ w el l a s] to thos e m ad e af te rw ar ds” ); 51 A m . Jur

. 2d Li m ita tio n of A ct ion s 9 § 32 0 ( 2011 ) (“ E xc ep t i n j ur isd ic tio ns i n w hic h a sta tut e re qui re s apa rt [i al ] pa ym en t 10 to b e m ad e b efor e the c au se of a ct ionis ba rr ed

to tol l t he sta tut e of

li m ita tio ns, the 11 lim ita tio n pe ri od m ay be starte d a ne w by

apa rt [i al ] pa ym en t m ad e ei the r be fo re or 12 af te r the or igi na l obl iga tio n ha s be co m e ba rr ed

. ” (f oot not e om itt ed ))

. H ow ev er , f or 13 a p art ia l p aym en t t o re vi ve an act io n, th e pa rti al pa ym en t m us t be vo lu nt ary. Jo sli n , 14 2003 -N MC A -1 33, ¶

19 ( “ [O ] nly

vol unt ar y pa ym en ts c antri gg er the r ev iva l st at ute 15 be ca use onl y vol unt ar y pa ym en ts re pr es en t the de bto r’ s a cknow le dgm en t of the de bt 16 givin g rise to a newprom ise.”)

.10

1 1. Th e Bu rd en of

P ro of 2 { 12} A ppe llants a rg ue tha t the Bank fa ile d to m ee t its bur de n to m ak e a pr im a fa ci e 3 show ing tha t the sta tut e of li m ita tio ns w as r ev ive d be ca use it did not m en tio n th e 4 sta tut e of

li m ita tio ns o r re viv al of ac tio ns in i ts i nit ia l m oti on f or sum m ar y j udgm en t. 5 Appellants seem

to argue that, bec ause they raised the statute of lim ita t i o n s as an 6 af fi rm at ive de fe nse in the ir

a nsw er to the c om

pla int , the Bank w as r equir ed to ad dr es s 7 the defense in its m otion for sum m ary j udgm ent, and, because it did not, the order 8 gr an ti ng su m

m ary jud gm en t i n fa vo r o f t h e B a nk sh ou ld be rev ers ed . Alt ho ug h we 9 ag re e w ithA ppe llants tha t the Bank shoul d have ad dr es se d th e sta tut e of li m ita tio ns 10 de fe nse in its m oti on f or sum m ar y j udgm en t, w e re co gni ze tha t th e st at ut e of 11 lim ita tio ns an d re viv al iss ue s w er e tho ro ughl y ad dr es se d dur ing the co ur se of the 12 sum m ar y j udgm en t pr oc ee din g s . A p p e l la nts r ai se d th e de fe nse in the ir r es pons e to the 13 Bank ’ s m otion , the B ank addressed the defense in its reply , the district court 14 requested supp lem ental briefing on the issu e, and the parties fil e d supp lem ental briefs 15 on the iss ue before a ruling was enter ed. U nder these circum stances, w e conclude that 16 the Bank m et

it s bu rd ento ad dres s al l of the und isp ute d f

ac tua l i ssu es r equir ed

f or 17 thi s C ourt t o is sue ade nov o r uli ng o n th e Bank’ s su m

m ar y j udgm en t m oti on.11

1 2. Volunt ariness of th e P aym ents 2 { 13} The B ank subm itted a swo rn aff idavit of its p resident during the summ ary 3 j udgm en t pr oc ee din gs, w hic h st at ed tha t “ [Appe llants ] r eque ste d th at [ the Bank] 4 p er m i t[A p p el l an t s ] to m ak e t h e d ea l re s u l t i n g i n t h e 2 0 0 6 [a n d2 0 0 8 ] [p ]aym en t [s .]” 5 A ppe llants did

not dis put e th is fac t du ri ng the sum m ar y j udgm en t pr oc ee din gs. 6 Appellants subm itted the settlem ent statem ents f or the 2006 and 2008 sales approved 7 by the Ranc h, sho w ing tha t the ne t pr oc eeds f ro m e ac h sa le w er e to b e pa id t o th e 8 Bank. A ppe llants did not dis put e that th e Ranc h a ppr ove d th es e se ttl em en t 9 sta te m en ts. A ppe llants did no t di sp ute tha t the Ranc h in te nde d a nd d ir ec te d th e 10 pr oc ee ds f

ro m 200 6 a nd 2 008 sa le s be pa id t o th e Bank. A ppe llants did not pr es en t 11 an y e vid en ce to cr ea te a n in fere nc e tha t i ts a ct ion s r eg ar din g th e pa ym en ts t o th e 12 Bank i n 20 06 an d 2008 w er e not vol unt ar y . U nde r the se c ir cu m stanc es , w e co nc lud e 13 tha t, a s am at te r of la w , the 2006 a nd 2 008 pa ym en ts t o th e Bank f ro m the pr oc ee ds 1 4 of t h e s a l e s o f t h e R a n c h ’ s r e a l p r o p e rt y w e r e v o l u n t a ry p a rt i a l p a ym e nts bythe 15 Ranc h. 16 { 14} W e ar e not

pe rs ua de d by

A ppe llants c ont en tio n th at the pa ym en ts m ad e fr om 17 the 200 6 a nd 2 008 sa le s w er e inv olu ntary be ca use the y w er e m ad e thr ough “ the sa le 18 of pr ope rty . ” Insup port of

thi s a rg um en t, A ppe llants c ite asta te m en t m ade b y thi s 19 Co urt i n Jo sli n :12

1 The general requirem ent that a p artial pay m ent m ust be vol untary 2 t o re v i v e a debt gi ves rise to the rule that p a r t i a l p a y m e n t s m a d e on a 3 de bt t

hrough t he sal e of p rope rty , e xe cu tio n or oth er le ga l process , or 4 through the application of the proceeds of a sale of property after 5 fo recl os ur e, are inv olu nta ry and co nse que ntl y do n ot c onst itu te par tia l 6 pay m en ts t

hat wo uld resta rt t he sta tut e of l im ita tio ns . 7 2003 -N MCA -133, ¶ 16 (e m phasis add ed). 8 { 15} T o th e ex te nt Appe llants a rg ue tha t all partial pay

m ents m ade on a debt after 9 ad e b t o r

e f f e c tu a t e s t h e s a l e o f s e c u r e d p r o p e rt y m u s tb e r e c o g n i z e da s i n v o l u n t a ry, 10 they m isconst rue Jo sli n . Se e id. ¶¶ 16-17 (noting that the quot ed statem ent wa s part 1 1 o f t h e “b a c k d r o p ” t h a t i n v o l v e d t h e s a l e o f p r o p e rt y after for eclosure an d w he the r the 12 resulting p artial pay m ents required after

forec losu re m

ust be recognized as 13 vol unt ar

y ); see a lso Sta te v. Erick son K. , 2002 -N MC A -0 58, ¶ 20, 132 N

. M. 258 , 46 14 P. 3d 1 258 (“ It

is w el l e sta

bli she d th at

c as es a re not

aut hority f or pr opos iti ons not 15 co nsi de re d. ” (i nte rn al quo ta tio n m ar ks and cit at ion om itt ed ))

. Fu rthe r, the auth or ity 16 ci te d in Jo sli n do es no t s up po rt Ap pe ll an ts ’ in te rp ret at io n. See 20 03 -NMCA- 13 3, ¶ 17 16 ( ci tin g 51 A m . Jur

. 2d Li m ita tio n of A ct ion s § 34 9 ( 2003 )) ; se e als o 51 Am . Jur. 1 8 2d Li m ita tio n of

A ct ion s § 3 2 8 ( 2 0 1 1 ) ( “ A p a ym e n t m a d e o n a d e b t b y the sa le of 19 pr ope rty

on e xe cu tio n or

oth er le ga l pr oc es s . . . doe s no t st op the ru nn in g of the 20 sta tut e. S im ilarl y , apa ym en t i s no t vo lun ta ry a nd d oe s no t r es ta rt

the sta tut e of 21 lim ita tio ns i f it is m ad e thr ough the appl ic at ionof the pr oc ee ds o f a sa le of

pr ope rty 22 after the forec losure of a trust deed or m ortgage or repossession of per s onal13

1 pr ope rty . ” (e m

pha sis a dde d) ); United States v. Lo r ince , 773 F

. S upp. 108 2, 108 6 2 (N .D

. Ill. 1991 ) (dealing with collateral that wa s sold at auction by the cr edito r , not 3 the de bto r) ; Za ks v . E lli ott , 106 F. 2d 42 5, 426 (4th Ci r. 1 9 3 9) (involvi ng collateral 4 t h at wa s sold by

the cr edito r , n o t t h e d e b t o r )

. B e c au s e A p p e l l a n t s d o n o t c ite a ny 5 authorityto supp ort their proposit ion th at a pay m ent m ade through th e de bto r’ s own 6 sa le of his or he r co lla te ra l i s de em ed to be inv olu ntary , w e pr es um e tha t no ne e xis ts 7 un de r th es e ci rcu m st an ces . See M cNe ill v. R ice E

ng’g & Operating, Inc. , 201 0- 8 N MS C- 015, ¶

11, 148 N

. M. 16, 229 P. 3d 489 (s ta tin g tha t w he re pa rt ie s fa il to c ite 9 auth o ri t y fo r th eir legal propositio ns, appellate courts “ will presum e that no such 10 authorityexists”). 11 { 16} A ppe llants a lso ur ge us to co nc lud e tha t the sa le of co lla te ra l by the de bto r “ on 12 his ow n” is j ust

a s in vol unt ar

y a s af or ce d sa le or

af or ecl os ur e sa le , be ca

use 13 o t he rwis e, “ de bt or s wo ul d b e en co ur ag edto for ce t he len de r to go th ro ug h [c os t l y] 14 fo re cl osur e pr oc ee din gs, . . . ins te ad of sim ply se lli ng the c oll at er al an d all ow ing the 15 pr oc ee d[ s] to be appl ie d to one or m or e of the loans. ” W e cannot

c onc lud e tha t a 16 pa rti al pa ym en t m ad e th ro ug h t he de bt or ’s d i sc ret io na ry sal e o f hi s o r he r own 17 collateral i s any

differ ent than a volun tary partial pay

m ent m ade w ith any

other 18 so ur ces of fu nd s th at are av ai la bl e to th e d eb to r. Se e Sta te v . D av is , 200 3- N MS C- 022, 19 ¶ 13, 134 N

. M. 172 , 74 P

. 3d 1 064 (s ta tin g th at appe lla te c ourts “ w ill not c onstru e14

1 statutes in a m anner contrary to the intent o f the L eg i s l ature and in a m anner that 2 leads to absurd or unreasonabl e re sults ”). 3 3. Ident ification of t he D ebt 4 { 17} Appellants next argue that , ev en if the 2006 and 2 008 p aym ents wer e 5 vol unt ar

y , the y did not r eviv e th e Bank’ s c la im s onthe $20 0, 000 not e an d th e 6 $650 ,00 0 not e be ca

use A ppe llants did

not ide nti fy the pa rt ic ular de bts tha t t hose 7 pa ym en ts w er e to b e ap pli ed

. T he y arg ue tha t, in or de r to r ev ive the sta tut e of 8 lim ita tio ns, a de bto r m ak ing a par tia l pay m en t m ust cl earl y

ide nti fy the de bt o r de bts 9 tha t he or

she int en ds t o dire ct

a nd a ppl y the pa ym en t. T he Bank c ount er s th at , 10 w ith out

a ny spe ci fi c ins tr

uc tio ns f ro m the A ppe llants on how to ap ply the pa ym en ts, 11 it ha d the dis cr et ion to dis tr ibu te the m am ong al l thr ee of the not es . W e ag re e w iththe 12 Bank. 13 { 18} W e begin by

rec ogni zing tha t , at t h e tim e that Appellants m ade the partial 14 pa ym en t f

ro m the 200 6 sa le , all th ree of the de bts w he re the Bank a ppl ie d th e 15 pa ym en t w er e en fo rc ea ble

. T he six -y ear sta tut e of lim ita tio ns ha d no t y et r un o n th e 1 6 Ba n k ’s cl ai m s i n v o l v i n g an y o f t h e t h re e d eb t s . Ap p el l an t s co n ce d e t h at t h e B an k ’s 17 cl ai m on the $20 0, 000 not e m at ur ed in 2004 ( pa ym en t w as ap pli ed tw o y ears a ft er

it 18 m at ur ed ), the c la im

on the $65 0, 000 not e ac cr ue d in 2001 (p ay

m en t w as appl ie d f

ive 19 y ears a ft er

it m at ur ed ), a nd tha t the $32 5, 000 not e w oul d no t m at ur e unt il 2014

.15

1 { 19} T he ge ne ra l r

ule is tha t: 2 A de bto r ow ing tw o or m or e de bts ha s th e ri ght to dir ec t t he 3 ap pli ca tio n of

his or he r pa ym en t to a spe ci fi c deb t or deb ts, but in the 4 ab se nc e of

suc h adir ec tio n, the c re dit or m ay usua lly ap ply

the pa ym en t 5 as the c re dit or

c hoos es w ithr es pe ct

to the tol li ng of the sta tut e of 6 lim itations . T hus, the creditor m ay apply a portion of a pay m ent to each 7 de bt an d, b y

su ch act io n, s us pe nd th e st at ut e o f li m it at io ns as t o a ll [.] 8 54 C.J.S. Li m ita tio ns o

f A ct ion s § 38 3 ( 2010 ); se e als o 51 A m . Jur

. 2d Li m ita tio n of 9 A ct ion s § 32 3 ( 2011 ) (“ If ade bto r fa ils to dir ec t t ha t a p ay m en t be appl ie d to a 10 pa rt ic ular de bt, the c re dit or m ay m ak e the ap pli ca tio n. If a cr ed ito r on m ult ipl e de bts 11 ap pli es a n un de sig na te d part ia l paym en t by ade bto r to a

de bt o n w hic h th e sta tut e of 12 lim ita tio ns h as not

y et r un, the pa ym en t t oll s th e st at ut e of li m ita tio ns o n th at

de bt. 13 If ac re dit or

hol ds s ev er al dis tin ct

c la im s, non e of

w hic h is ba rr ed

by the sta tut e, a nd 14 the de bto r m ak es apa ym en t wit hout a ny dir ec tio n c onc er

nin g it s a ppl ic at ion , the 15 cr ed ito r m ay

appl y it to an y one or dis tr ibu te it

a m ong all th e cl ai m s, f or thi s 16 pur pose . ” (f oot not es om itt ed ))

. Whe re ne ith er the de bto r nor the cr ed ito r dir ec ts h ow 17 the de bto r’ s paym en t sh oul d be appl ie d, the c om m on l awr

ule a lso a llo w s th e 18 pa ym en t t o be appor tio ne d a m ong the de bts in or de r to pr ev en t t he sta tut e of 19 li m it at io ns fro m

run ni ng on a n y o f th os e d eb ts

. See 60 A m . Jur

. 2d P ay m en t § 71 20 (2014) (“ [W ] ithou t specific appli ca t i o n by either the debtor or the cr editor, the law 21 w ill appl y

pa ym en ts r at ab ly

to pr ev en t any of se ve ra l note s fr om be ing ba rr ed by the 22 statute of lim itations .” ).16

1 { 20} The r equirem ent for a debtor to identify the pa rticular debt that a partial 2 pa ym en t a

ppl ie s to w ill be co m e a m at er ia l f ac tor w he n th e statut e of

li m ita tions on 3 th at pa rti cu la r de bt ha s al read y run . Se e D rake v. Tyner , 914 P

. 2d 5 19, 523 ( Co lo. 4 App. 1996 ) (holding th at, “ when a c reditor on m ultip le debts applies an un designated 5 partial paym ent by the debtor to a debt on which the statute of lim itations has not y et 6 ru n, the pa ym en t toll s the sta tut e of li m ita tio ns o n th at

de bt” ); ac co rd Ne al v. G ide on , 7 138 P. 2d 4 19, 420 ( K an . 1943 ); Samuel v. Samuel’s A dm’r , 1 5 1 S

. W. 6 7 6 , 6 7 8 ( K y. 8 1912 ); A nde rso n v . Ny

str om , 114 N

. W

. 742 , 743 (M inn

. 1908 ); Anderson v. Stanley , 9 753 S. W

. 2d 9 8, 100 ( Mo. Ct

. A pp. 198 8) ; se e als o 51 A m . Jur

. 2d L i m i t a t ion of 10 A ct ion s 2d § 32 3 (“ [I] f the cr editor hold s several separa te claim s , al l o f w hich are 11 the n barr ed

by the stat ut e, an d the de bto r m ak es apa ym en t w ith out dir ec tin g or 12 authorizing its application to any one of them , the bar o f the statute is no t rem oved 13 w ithr eg ar d to a ny

of the de bts , be ca

use suc h a p ay m en t does n ot s at isf y the 14 re qui re m en t tha t the de bto r reco gni ze or a cknow le dge apa rt ic ular de bt. ” (f oot not e 15 om itt ed )) ; 51 A m . Jur

. 2d Li m ita tio n of A ct ion s § 33 0 ( 2011 ) (“ T o take ade bt out of 16 the sta tut e of l im ita tio ns by apa rt pa ym en t, the e vid en ce of the ide nti fi ca tio n of

the 17 de bt m

us t b e cl ear[ .] ” (em

ph as is ad de d) ); 2 8 R ic ha rdA. Lord , W ill ist on o n C

ontrac ts 18 § 72 :9 ( 4th e d. 2003 ) (“ Whe re the cr ed ito r ha s the pow er to dir ec t t he appl ic at ionof 19 a pa ym en t, it is al low ed to m ak e the ap pr opr ia tio n in the w ay m ost a dva nta ge ous fo r17

1 itself without regard to the i nterests of the debtor. T hus, the paym ent m ay be applied 2 to

. . . on e th at is un en fo rcea bl e b ecau s e o f

. . . th e [s ]tatu te of [ l]im it at io ns . . . . 3 [H ] ow ev er , . . . appl ic at ionby the c re dit or

to a de bt b ar

re d by the [s]ta tut e of 4 [l ] im ita tio ns wi ll not re ne w the obl iga tio n un le ss the de bto r ha s di re ct ed the pa ym en t 5 or otherwise c onsented to the renew al of the debt.” ). 6 { 21} H er e, the 200 6 paym en t w as m ad e be fo re tha t sta tut e of li m ita tio ns r anon any 7 of the thr ee de bts in que sti on. Be ca use none of the Bank’ s c la im s w er e ba rr ed by the 8 statute of lim itations when the Ranch m ade the 2006 paym ent, and because the Ranch 9 did n o t d i r e c t h o w t h a t p a ym e n t s h o u l d h a v e b e e n ap p l i e d , t h e B a n k w a s f re e to 10 “ dis tr ibu te it

a m ong al l the c la im s, ” 51 A m . Jur

. 2d Li m ita tio n of A ct ion s § 32 3, a nd 11 th us , “ su sp en d th e st at ut e of li m it at io ns as to al l[.]” 54 C.J.S. Li m ita tio ns o f A ct ion s 12 § 38 3. A ppe llants do n ot d isp ute tha t the Bank distri but ed the 200 6 paym en t a m ong 13 al l t hr ee de bts

. A nd the y do n ot a sse rt

or a llege an y fa ct s th at

w oul d sh ow tha t t he 14 Ranc h i nt en de d th at

the 200 6 paym en t be appl ie d di ff er en tly

. T hus, the sta tut e of 15 lim ita tio ns w as re viv ed , or start ed “ ru nni ng ane w [, ] ” on a ll thr ee de bts w he n th e 2006 16 paym ent was m ade, and it wa s revived for a sec ond ti m e, when the 2008 pay m ent was 17 m ad e. Se e Cor ona , 201 4- N MC A -0 71, ¶ 12. T he re fo re , no g enuin e dis put e ex ist s 18 re ga rd ing the m at er ia l f ac t ad dr es sin g the re viv al of the sta tut e of li m ita tio ns i n 20 0618

1 an d 20 08, a nd, a s am at te r of la w , the Bank’ s 20 11 cl ai m s ag ai nst the Ranc h w er e not 2 ba rred by the si x- y ear s ta tu te of l im it at io ns . Se e Jo sli n , 200 3- N MC A -1 33, ¶ 6. 3 4. Kathryn’ s Guaranty 4 { 22} Ap p el l an t s ar g u e t h at , e v en i f t h e 2 0 0 6 an d2 0 0 8 p aym en t s re v i v ed t h e B an k ’s 5 c l a i ms a g a i n s tt h e R a n c h , i t d i dn o tau t o mat i c a l l y re v i v e t h e c l a i ms a g a i n s tKa t h ryn 6 be ca use the Bank d id n ot s howthat sh e co ns ente d to the se pa ym en ts m ad e by the 7 Ranch. W e agree that the lack of any showing of consent on Ka thryn’ s part precludes 8 summ ary

j udgm ent against her. 9 { 23} T his C o u rtr e c e n t l y h e l dt h a t“ ap a ym e n tb y ap r i n c i p a l o b l i g o r , w i t hout 10 co nse nt o r ra tif

ic at ionby the guaranto r, is not

avol unt ar

y a ct by the guaranto r an d, 11 hence, cannot bin d the guarantor.” Co rona , 201 4- N MC A -0 71, ¶ 21. T he pa rt ie s do 12 not di spute that K athry n was a guarantor to all three notes. I t is also un dispu ted that 13 K athr yn w as not

apr inc ipa l ob lig or

be ca use she w as not

apa rtne r in the Ranc h. A nd 14 the Bank h as m ad e no allegations and has not asserted any fac ts to establis h that 15 K athr yn c onse nte d to or

r at if ie d th e 2006 or

200 8 sa le s of the Ranc h’ s r ea l pr ope rty 16 an d th e subs eque nt p ay m en ts o f the ne t pr oc ee ds t o th e Bank. T hus, the s ta tu te of 17 lim ita tio ns o n th e Bank’ s r igh t to enf or ce the $650 , 000 an d $200, 000 note s a ga ins t 18 K athr yn’ s gu ar an ty

w er e not au tom at ic al ly

r ev ive d by

the 200 6 a nd 2 008 pa ym en ts 19 m ade by

the Ranch, in its capacity as the principal oblig or. U nder this factual19

1 sc en ar io, sum

m ar y j udgm en t w ithr eg ar d to K athr y n’s cont inu ed li ab ili ty f or the 2 $650 , 000 an d $2 00, 000 not es w as im pr ope rl y gr an te d. The re fo re , w e re ve rs e the 3 sum m ar y j udgm en t r

uli ng e nte re d aga ins t Ka thr yn re ga rd ing he r co nti nui ng l ia bil ity 4 on the $65 0, 000 an d $2 00, 000 not es , a nd w e re m an d f or f urthe r pr oc ee din gs 5 co nc er nin g he r lia

bil ity on the se tw o no te s. 6 III. CON CLU SION 7 { 24} W e af

fi rm the sum

m ar y j udgm en t w ithr es pe ct

to the Ba nk’ s c la im s a ga ins t t he 8 Ranc h, Bu rr el l, E liz ab eth, a nd B rand on . We af fi rm the sum m ar y j udgm en t a ga ins t 9 Ka thryn with respect to the $325,000 no te. W e re verse the sum m ary j udgm ent order 1 0 w ith r eg ar d t o K a t h ryn a s i t p e rt a i n s t o h e r p e r s o n a l g u a r a n t y o f t h e $ 6 5 0 , 0 0 0 a nd 11 $200 , 000 not es , a nd w e re m an d this ca se to the dis tr ic t cour t for f urthe r pr oc ee din gs 12 as to K athr

yn. 13 { 25} IT IS S O ORDERE D. 14

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ 15 TI M OT HYL. GA R C IA , Ju dg e 16 WE CO NCUR: 17

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ 18 M IC HA EL D . BU ST A M A N TE , Ju dg e 19

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ 20 LI N D A M . V A N Z I, Ju dg e