Quirico v. Lopez, 16908

Decision Date18 August 1987
Docket NumberNo. 16908,16908
Citation740 P.2d 1153,106 N.M. 169,1987 NMSC 70
PartiesDan QUIRICO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ernesto LOPEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
CourtNew Mexico Supreme Court
OPINION

SOSA, Senior Justice.

Plaintiff Dan Quirico (plaintiff) filed a complaint for accounting and damages against defendant Ernesto Lopez (defendant), alleging that he and defendant had entered into an agreement to jointly farm property in Dona Ana County, New Mexico. Defendant answered and filed three counterclaims, alleging the following: a breach of an employment contract for services, with damages asserted in the amount of $12,919.69, a breach of contract for the sale of pecans in the sum of $75, and a breach of contract for the rental of certain premises owned by defendant in the amount of $900. The trial court, sitting without a jury, found that the parties had entered into an oral agreement to engage in a joint venture and awarded plaintiff a judgment for $5388. Defendant appeals. We affirm.

Defendant raises the following contentions for reversal on appeal: (1) that plaintiff admitted his liability by failing to reply to the counterclaims; (2) that the evidence does not support the court's findings that the parties made an oral partnership agreement; and (3) that his (defendant's) damages have been proven without contradiction.

COUNTERCLAIMS

Defendant argues that plaintiff's failure to respond to the counterclaims establishes his liability under SCRA 1986, 1-008(D) (known as Rule 8(D)).

Rule 8(D) provides in pertinent part: "Averments in a pleading to which a responsive pleading is required, other than those as to the amount of damage, are admitted when not denied in the responsive pleading."

We agree with defendant's general statement of the law, but disagree that Rule 8(D) has any applicability for reversal in this instance. In its judgment, the trial court granted defendant the full relief prayed for under his second and third counterclaims, a total of $975. The court offset this amount against defendant's total indebtedness to plaintiff. Because these counterclaims concerned matters unrelated to the joint venture, they were correctly designated as counterclaims, requiring a responsive pleading. Regarding the first counterclaim, however, the trial court found that it was merely a defense to plaintiff's allegations and thus treated the pleading as a defense, not a counterclaim. We find the trial court committed no error.

It is proper for courts to treat a defendant's pleading denominated a counterclaim as an answer raising an affirmative defense, regardless of its title, if the allegations of the pleading so require. SCRA 1986, 1-008(C); see also Horsford v. Romeo, 407 F.2d 1302 (3rd Cir.1969).

Defendant's answer, paragraph one, states in part that, "the plaintiff had engaged his services to water, cultivate, and harvest certain crops and [was to] pay for his services out of the proceeds from crop sales." By comparison, the first counterclaim states: "The plaintiff engaged the services of the defendant to water, cultivate, and harvest certain crops on land located by the plaintiff with seed furnished by the plaintiff and the defendant was to be paid for his services out of the proceeds from the crop sales." It appears that the basis of the claim in this counterclaim is identical to the affirmative defense in the answer. Thus, the court was correct in ruling that the first counterclaim was merely a reiteration of the affirmative defense and therefore would not be treated as a counterclaim requiring a responsive pleading.

SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE

Defendant next argues the evidence does not support the trial court's finding that the parties entered into an oral partnership agreement in which they agreed to share operating expenses. On appeal, this Court views the evidence in a light most favorable to support the findings and conclusions of the trial court. The trial court will not be reversed unless the findings and conclusions cannot be supported by the evidence or permissible inferences. Mountain States Constr. Co. v. Aragon, 98 N.M. 194, 195, 647 P.2d 396, 397 (1982); Lujan v. Pendaries Properties, Inc., 96 N.M. 771, 774, 635 P.2d 580, 583 (1981); First Nat'l Bank of Santa Fe v. Wood, 86 N.M. 165, 167, 521 P.2d 127, 129 (1974). Nor will we weigh conflicting evidence. Shaeffer v. Kelton, 95 N.M. 182, 186, 619 P.2d 1226, 1230 (1980). The trial court's finding that the parties entered into a joint venture, a single partnership transaction, for the purpose of engaging in a farming operation is supported by substantial evidence in the record.

A joint venture is formed when the parties agree to combine their money, property or time for conducting a particular business venture and agree to share jointly in profits and losses, with the right of mutual control over the business enterprise or over the property. Fullerton v. Kaune, 72 N.M. 201, 204, 382 P.2d 529, 532 (1963). Even though defendant argues that there was no partnership or association between the parties to jointly farm certain crops, he concedes they agreed to equally share profits from crop sales. Defendant maintains, however, that in order to find an oral partnership there must be both an agreement to share profits and an agreement to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • La Frontera Ctr., Inc. v. United Behavioral Health, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico
    • June 1, 2017
    ...United Health's Supplemental Brief at 2 (citing N.M. Stat. Ann. § 54–1A–306 ; Quirico v. Lopez, 1987–NMSC–070, ¶ 9, 106 N.M. 169, 740 P.2d 1153, 1154 ). United Health also argues that, under traditional principles of agency law, arbitration clauses can bind non-signatory business entities. ......
  • La Frontera Ctr., Inc. v. United Behavioral Health, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico
    • March 20, 2017
    ...and losses, with the right of mutual control over the business enterprise or over the property." Quirico v. Lopez, 1987-NMSC-070, ¶ 9, 740 P.2d 1153, 1155 (citing Fullerton v. Kaune, 1963-NMSC-078, ¶ 8, 382 P.2d 529, ...
  • Wirth v. Sun Healthcare Grp., Inc.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of New Mexico
    • September 15, 2016
    ...with the right of mutual control over the business enterprise or over the property." Quirico v. Lopez , 1987–NMSC–070, ¶ 9, 106 N.M. 169, 740 P.2d 1153. Perhaps the most workable rule is that joint venturers can never conduct their enterprise through the instrumentality of a corporation as ......
  • Dixon v. Stone Truck Line, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico
    • November 23, 2021
    ...and losses, with the right of mutual control over the business enterprise or over the property.” Quirico v. Lopez, 1987-NMSC-070, ¶ 9, 106 N.M. 169. Russell Stover argues that Plaintiff does not allege in the TAC any right of mutual control over the business enterprise or over the property.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT