Opinion ID: 1376262
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Summary Judgment on Cadle's Counterclaims

Text: The court dismissed Cadle's counterclaims after granting summary judgment to Hinkle on the issue of account stated. The Restatement of Contracts defines an account stated as a manifestation of assent by debtor and creditor to a stated sum as an accurate computation of an amount due the creditor. Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 282(1) (1979). New Mexico case law similarly defines an account stated as `an account balanced, and rendered, with an assent to the balance, express or implied, so that the demand is essentially the same as if a promissory note had been given for the balance.' Leonard v. Greenleaf, 21 N.M. 180, 184, 153 P. 807, 808 (1915) (quoting Comer v. Way, 107 Ala. 300, 19 So. 966, 967 (1895)). Once an account stated is established, it operates as an admission by each party that a certain sum of money is due. See Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 282(2). Neither party, in the absence of fraud or mistake, can question the correctness of the stated sum. Leonard, 21 N.M. at 187, 153 P. at 809 (quoting Brown & Manzanares Co. v. Gise, 14 N.M. 282, 287, 91 P. 716, 717 (1907)). The trial court concluded that Cadle had impliedly assented to the amounts it had previously paid Hinkle by paying those amounts without objection. The court found uncontradicted testimony of record of the manifestation of assent by [Cadle] to [Hinkle's] charges which have been paid by [Cadle]. It further found no evidence of fraud or mutual mistake. Cadle argues that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment because Cadle presented evidence showing that it had not assented to the amounts it had previously paid. Cadle points out that Daniel Cadle met with attorneys at Hinkle to discuss objections to Hinkle's bills. It also relies on Daniel Cadle's testimony that payment of Hinkle's invoices did not necessarily indicate that Cadle had no objections to the bills. Cadle's argument is not persuasive. While Daniel Cadle did testify that he met with attorneys at Hinkle in early 1989 to discuss Cadle's concern that Hinkle's bills were too high, Cadle also admitted that after these discussions he paid Hinkle's bills without protest or any noted reservation of right. Such payments, occurring after Daniel Cadle reviewed the invoices and even discussed some of them with Hinkle, demonstrated Cadle's assent to those amounts. This assent constituted an account stated. Absent a recognized ground for avoidance, such as fraud or mutual mistake, which the trial court found to be absent, Cadle cannot now argue that the amounts it has already paid were unreasonable. See Tabet Lumber Co. v. Chalamidas, 83 N.M. 172, 174, 489 P.2d 885, 887 (Ct.App. 1971) (assuming that reasonableness of amount involved is a defense to account stated, defendant's agreement to the amount is evidence of its reasonableness). Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's summary judgment in favor of Hinkle on the counterclaims.