Opinion ID: 1188744
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Punitive Damage

Text: Punitive damages may be awarded only when the conduct of the wrongdoer may be said to be maliciously intentional, fraudulent or oppressive, or committed recklessly or with a wanton disregard of the rights of the plaintiff. Loucks v. Albuquerque National Bank, 76 N.M. 735, 418 P.2d 191 (1966). Although we do not agree with Leon's interpretation of the interrelationship of paragraphs four and six of the deed of trust, or that adequate equestrian facilities existed at the time of sale, we hold that Leon's conduct does not justify the award of punitive damages. It is uncontradicted that Leon acted on advice of counsel. The position which Leon took was not without some justification. It is clear that he believed the equestrian amenity was in existence at the time he sold the property. He was also of the belief that he was not required by the deed of trust to grant the release. Moreover, Leon showed that he was of this belief prior to the time that PPI sought a release of lien on the 19.45 acres. The other evidence cited to support the trial court's award of punitive damages is insufficient to show that Leon's actions were done arbitrarily, willfully, and capriciously as found by the trial court. Therefore, the award of punitive damages must be reversed.