Court Opinion

ID: 9548442
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 18:03:43.951445+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:18:58.155434
License: Public Domain

STOWERS, J. (Dissenting) I dissent from the Majority Opinion insofar as it affirms the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Watson on the issue of liability. In my opinion there exists a genuine issue of material fact which would preclude the issuance of summary judgment. As we have previously stated, summary judgment is an extreme remedy which should yield to a trial on the merits if, after resolving all reasonable doubts in favor of the opponent of the motion, the evidence adduced at the hearing establishes the existence of a genuine issue as to any material fact. Peoples State Bank v. Ohio Cos. Ins. Co., 96 N.M. 751, 635 P.2d 306 (1981). When a genuine issue of material fact exists, summary judgment is improper. NMSA 1978, Civ.P.R. 56 (Repl.Pamp.1980). Mr. Nemec, Growney Equipment’s salesperson and representative, specifically denied any intent to enter into a valid and enforceable contract at the time Mr. Watson signed the sale documents. Mr. Nemec’s Affidavit in support of Defendant’s Response To Motion For Summary Judgment properly raises this issue. There was, therefore, a genuine issue of material fact to be decided by the trial court. For these reasons, I respectfully dissent.