Title: Akre v. Washburn
Citation: 590 P.2d 635, 92 N.M. 487
Docket Number: 12020
State: new-mexico
Issuer: new-mexico Supreme Court
Date: February 16, 1979

590 P.2d 635 (1979) 92 N.M. 487 Jane AKRE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Brian H. WASHBURN, Defendant-Appellee. No. 12020. Supreme Court of New Mexico. February 16, 1979. *636 Bruce C. Redd, Albuquerque, for plaintiff-appellant. Nordhaus, Moses &amp; Dunn, Thomas J. Dunn, Albuquerque, for defendant-appellee. SOSA, Chief Justice. On October 13, 1977, plaintiff (appellant) filed her complaint alleging that on July 8, 1973, she gave defendant (appellee) $1200 for a half interest in land located in Santa Fe County and praying for a sale of the land with an equal division of the proceeds, or alternatively, for a judgment against appellee for $1200 plus interest. Appellant appeals from a summary judgment entered in favor of appellee. We affirm. Appellant asserted in her complaint that, contrary to an agreement between them, appellee refused to deed appellant's interest in the land to her, or to return the $1200. Appellant claims that a partnership or joint venture was created between herself and appellee. Appellee denied any business dealings with appellant, denied that he owed her anything, and asserted the following affirmative defenses: On March 8, 1978, a hearing was held on appellee's motion for summary judgment. The Court ruled that the original answer did not contain the affirmative defense that the complaint was barred by the Statute of Limitations, but it allowed appellee to amend his answer to include this defense. A rehearing on appellee's motion for summary judgment was held on March 20, 1978. The motion was granted. Appellant contends that the court erred in granting summary judgment. Appellant argues that because appellee denied each allegation of the complaint, each fact so pled is at issue. Appellee counters that summary judgment is properly granted where the record shows that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact. He argues that the Statute of Limitations bars appellant's claim because her complaint was filed over four years after the date the alleged agreement between the parties was entered into. N.M.R. Civ. P. 56(c), N.M.S.A. 1978 provides in pertinent part: N.M.R. Civ. P. 56(e), N.M.S.A. 1978 provides that: Our courts use the following rules to determine whether an issue of fact exists in a summary judgment proceeding: First Nat. Bk., Albuquerque v. Nor-Am Agr. Prod., Inc., 88 N.M. 74, 80, 537 P.2d 682, 688 (Ct.App. 1975), cert. denied, 88 N.M. 29, 536 P.2d 1085 (1975). See also Withrow v. Woozencraft, 90 N.M. 48, 559 P.2d 425 (Ct.App. 1976), cert. denied, 90 N.M. 255, 561 P.2d 1348 (1977). In a summary judgment proceeding, the burden is on the moving party to show that there is no genuine issue of material fact to submit to the fact finder, and an opposing party may not remain silent in the face of a meritorious showing by the moving party. Southern Union Gas Co. v. Briner Rust Proofing Co., 65 N.M. 32, 40, 331 P.2d 531, 536 (1958). We have recently stated: Air Engineering v. Corporacion de la Fonda, 91 N.M. 135, 137, 571 P.2d 402, 404 (1977). See also 73 Am.Jur.2d Summary Judgment § 22 (1974). The record below shows that appellant delivered a $1200 check to appellee on July 8, 1973. Her complaint was filed on October 13, 1977. Appellant nowhere disputes the fact that over four years have lapsed since she delivered the check to appellee. Sections 37-1-1 and 4, N.M.S.A. 1978 (formerly §§ 23-1-1 and 4, N.M.S.A. 1953) provide that an action for accounts and unwritten contracts may be brought within four years after the cause of action accrues. We have previously stated that where there is no specified time for the payment of loans, the action accrues upon the date of such loan. Gentry v. Gentry, 59 N.M. 395, 399, 285 P.2d 503, 506 (1955). We find that § 37-1-4 applies to this case. The Statute of Limitations began to run on the alleged demand obligation on the date it was contracted, July 8, 1973. Thus, appellant's cause of action is barred by the applicable Statute of Limitations. Because we find that summary judgment was properly granted, we do not reach the issue of whether the alleged agreement between the parties as constituting a joint venture falls within the Statute of Frauds. Appellant asks that should the judgment not be reversed, the cause be remanded with instructions to the trial court to furnish her with a statement of its reasons for granting summary judgment. Appellant relies on Wilson v. Albuquerque Board of Realtors, 81 N.M. 657, 472 P.2d 371 (1970). In Wilson, no grounds for granting summary judgment were set forth in the motion or in the judgment. That case involved an 800-page transcript and the reason for granting summary judgment was not clearly apparent from the record. We stated: Id. at 661, 472 P.2d at 375. In Garrett v. Nissen Corporation, 84 N.M. 16, 498 P.2d 1359, (1972), the only pertinent finding by the trial court was that there was no genuine issue as to any material fact and that defendant was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. We said this is all that is required of the trial court under Rule 56(c). The trial court is not required to adopt a separate opinion or to enter a recital in the record as to the exact grounds for granting summary judgment beyond the requirements of Rule 56. We said: Id. at 18, 498 P.2d at 1361. See also Skarda v. Skarda, 87 N.M. 497, 536 P.2d 257 (1975). In this case, the court made no finding that there was no genuine issue of material fact nor did it state any reasons for its ruling. It is apparent from the record, which is only thirty-two pages long, that the court granted summary judgment because it considered the action was barred by the Statute of Limitations. The question arises whether the court erred in failing to specifically find, and so state in its order, that there was no genuine issues as to any material fact in granting appellee's motion for summary judgment. Under the circumstances of this case, where it is clearly apparent that summary judgment was granted because the action was time-barred, we find no error. We affirm the decision of the lower court granting summary judgment in favor of appellee. IT IS SO ORDERED. EASLEY and PAYNE, JJ., concur.