Court Opinion

ID: 9785412
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 21:40:36.752911+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:36:23.898793
License: Public Domain

SUTIN, Judge (concurring in part and dissenting in part). {40} I concur in all of the majority opinion except that part affirming the dismissal of Plaintiffs claim for interest lost because of the postponement of the closing date of the sale. I do not read Marchman v. NCNB Texas National Bank, 120 N.M. 74, 898 P.2d 709 (1995), to preclude Plaintiffs claim for interest. Marchman should not be read so broadly. Lovelace was not the owner of the right to or claim for lost interest. Lovelace could not discharge any liability for that lost interest. There exists no contention or evidence that this alleged injury to Plaintiff was inflicted on Lovelace with only an indirect injury to Plaintiff resulting from a diminution in value of Plaintiffs corporate shares. The same wrongful conduct could independently and separately (1) impair Lovelace’s corporate assets, and (2) cause Ardent to hesitate to close and to delay closing, resulting in Plaintiffs lost interest. Bringing Plaintiff’s lost interest claim within Marchman is too great a stretch of Marchman. I therefore respectfully dissent as to the majority’s affirmance based on Marchman of the district court’s dismissal of Plaintiffs claim of lost interest.