This memorandum opinion was not selected for pub lication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations fr om the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does not include the filing date. IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 1 CHICA ENERGY, LLC, 2 Plaintiff-Appellee, 3

v. NO. 32,608 4 COG OPERATING, LLC, 5 Defendant-Appellant. 6 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF EDDY COUNTY 7 Richard J. Brown, District Judge 8 Max Houston Proctor 9 Hobbs, NM 10 Dick A. Blenden 11 Carlsbad, NM 12 for Appellant 13 Maddox, Holloman, & Kirksey, P.C. 14 Scotty Holloman 15 Hobbs, NM 16 for Appellee 17 MEMORANDUM OPINION 18 VANZI, Judge. 192 Chica Energy appeals from a judgment dismissing its claim against Defendant 1 COG Operating. In our notice of propos ed summary disposition, we proposed to 2 affirm. Chica Energy has filed a memo randum in opposition, which we have duly 3 considered. As we are not persuaded by Chica Energy’s arguments, we affirm. 4 Sufficiency of the Evidence 5 In Chica Energy’s docketing statement, it raised three issues regarding the 6 sufficiency of the evidence to support the district court’s decision. The first of these 7 was Chica Energy’s claim that there wa s not substantial evidence to support a 8 conclusion that the agreement between Biscuit Hills Disposal, LLC, and COG 9 Operating, LLC, was a lawful and effec tive assignment of 100% of Biscuit Hill 10 Disposal’s interests in the well such thatCOG Operating subsequently stood in the 11 shoes of Biscuit Hills Disposal. The other two were arguments that there was 12 substantial evidence to make findings different from those the district court actually 13 made. 14 In our notice of proposed summary dispos ition, with respect to the first issue, 15 we proposed to hold that the assignment and bill of sale constituted substantial 16 evidence to prove that there was an assignment of Biscuit Hill Disposal’s interests in 17 the well to COG Operating. We noted th at, to the degree that Chica Energy was 18 challenging the legal conclusion that the a ssignment was effective, it would have to 19 present relevant authority to demonstrate legal error in its memorandum in opposition. 203 With respect to Chica Energy’s other two clai ms of error, we pointed that our standard 1 of review on appeal does not permit this C ourt to evaluate the sufficiency of the 2 evidence to support findings that were not made. This is because the question on 3 appeal “is not whether substantial eviden ce exists to support the opposite result, but 4 rather whether such evidence supports the result reached.” Las Cruces Prof’l Fire 5 Fighters v. City of Las Cruces , 1997-NMCA-044, ¶ 12, 123 N.M. 329, 940 P.2d 177. 6 “In reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence claim, this C ourt views the evidence in a 7 light most favorable to the prevailing party and disregards any inferences and 8 evidence to the contrary.” Weidler v. Big J Enters. , 1998-NMCA-021, ¶ 30, 124 N.M. 9 591, 953 P.2d 1089 (alteration, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted). And 10 “[w]hen the trial court’s findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence, . . . 11 refusal to make contrary findings is not error.” Griffin v. Guadalupe Med. Ctr., Inc. , 12 1997-NMCA-012, ¶ 22, 123 N.M. 60, 933 P.2d 859. Therefore, we indicated that 13 Chica Energy could not demonstrate error on this basis and that it would have to 14 reframe its issues to properly challenge the district court’s actual findings and 15 conclusions. 16 Chica Energy’s memorandum in opposition provides this Court with no facts 17 or legal authority that would demonstrate th at the district court erred in concluding 18 that the assignment and bill of sale constituted a valid assi gnment of rights to the well. 19 In addition, it does not demonstrate any error with respect to its second and third 204 claims of error. Accordingly, Chica En ergy has failed to demonstrate error on the 1 grounds of its first three issues. 2 Quantum Meruit 3 Chica Energy contends that the district court erred in refusing to award damages 4 for unjust enrichment under a theory of quantum meruit. In this Court’s notice of 5 proposed summary disposition, we proposedto find no error on three independent 6 alternative grounds. The first of these— and the one on which the district court 7 relied—was that generally a contract will be enforced as written, such that equity will 8 only relieve a party of the consequences of its bargain under extremely limited 9 circumstances. See Arena Res., Inc. v. OBO, Inc. , 2010-NMCA-061, ¶ 17, 148 N.M. 10 483, 238 P.3d 357 (“A court of equity is bound by a contract as the parties have made 11 it and has no authority to substitute for it another and different agreement, and should 12 afford relief only where obviously there is fraud, real hardship, oppression, mistake, 13 unconscionable results, and the other grounds of righteousness, justice and morality.” 14 (alteration, internal quotation marks, an d citation omitted)). In Chica Energy’s 15 memorandum in opposition, it asserts that the facts of this case demonstrated that 16 there was real hardship and oppression becau se Chica Energy was not being paid for 17 the water that COG Operating was disposi ng in its own well. [M IO unnumbered pages 18 5-6] However, the contract only provided that Chica Energy would be paid a 19 percentage of any revenues that COG Operating received if it were to charge other 205 parties to dispose of water in the well. Wehold that the districtcourt did not err in 1 determining that the fact that Chica Ener gy did not receive payments to which it was 2 not entitled is not the sort of injustice that warrants equitable relief from the clear 3 terms of a contract. 4 Therefore, for the reasons stated in this opinion and in our notice of proposed 5 summary disposition, we affirm. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7

__________________________________ 8 LINDA M. VANZI, Judge 9 WE CONCUR: 10

_________________________________ 11 CYNTHIA A. FRY, Judge 12

_________________________________ 13 TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge 14