Opinion ID: 2606493
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Existence of material facts in dispute.

Text: Despite the analysis above, the Association maintains that summary judgment was improper because Trujillo's affidavit at least puts into issue the factual question of when the Association knew, or by reasonable diligence should have learned, that it had a cause of action. The affidavit itself states that [m]y investigation has revealed the following, but then it simply recites allegations similar to those of the counterclaim, with no reference to extrinsic facts by which the allegations could be proved. Once Dow had made a prima facie showing that he was entitled to summary judgment, the burden then shifted to the Association to demonstrate the existence of specific evidentiary facts which would require a trial on the merits. Spears v. Canon de Carnue Land Grant, 80 N.M. 766, 461 P.2d 415 (1969). A party may not simply argue that such facts might exist, nor may it rest upon the allegations of the complaint. Oschwald v. Christie . Furthermore, the Association cannot convert the hearsay testimony of one of its officers into admissible evidence by the expedient of labeling the testimony as the fruit of an investigation. We find the Association's contention to be disingenuous and unconvincing. It offers no plausible explanation for why (or even how) Dow's alleged constructive fraud was only discovered within the last four years, nor does it indicate why the matter was not raised directly, instead of waiting to counterclaim after Dows had filed suit. Finally, we observe that the Association is not out of court altogether. If it can prove that Dow defrauded it or breached his fiduciary duties, then the remedy of damages remains available. The trial court simply concluded that the Association failed to make a showing sufficient to cause the court to exercise its equitable powers and overturn a long established sequence of publicly recorded transactions. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed and the matter is remanded for trial of the remaining issues. IT IS SO ORDERED. RIORDAN, C.J., and FEDERICI, J., concur.