Trujillo v. Glen Falls Inc., Co.

Decision Date29 August 1975
Docket NumberNo. 9947,9947
Citation1975 NMSC 46,540 P.2d 209,88 N.M. 279
PartiesGilbert TRUJILLO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GLEN FALLS INSURANCE COMPANY, Underwriters Adjusting Company and Betty Cooper, Defendants-Appellees.
CourtNew Mexico Supreme Court
OPINION

MONTOYA, Justice.

This case involves an appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Bernalillo County in favor of defendants, denying a claim by plaintiff Gilbert Trujillo for specific performance of an alleged oral contract.

On August 9, 1971, plaintiff was a passenger in an automobile which was involved in a collision with a truck driven by F. B. Stutz. At the time of the accident, Mr. Stutz was insured by defendant Glen Falls Insurance Company (Glen Falls). Defendant Underwriters Adjusting Company (Underwriters) was hired by Glen Falls to adjust the claim of plaintiff against Mr. Stutz. Defendant Betty Cooper was an employee of Underwriters and was in charge of plaintiff's file. From August 13, 1971, to October 15, 1971, ten advance payments totaling $2,380.13 were made by Glen Falls to plaintiff for lost wages, medical expenses, travel and lodging. Upon receipt of each of the ten checks, plaintiff signed a 'Receipt for Advance Payment' which read in part:

'This is to acknowledge receipt of $_ _ paid on behalf of Glen Falls Ins. Co. to be credited to the total amount of any final settlement or judgment in my/our favor * * *.'

On or about December 10, 1971, plaintiff retained, William Marchiondo to represent him in this matter. After contacting defendant Underwriters, Mr. Marchiondo was furnished copies of the receipts on December 13, 1971. From the time Mr. Marchiondo was retained until October 30, 1972, he engaged in settlement negotiations with Ms. Cooper. On or about October 30, 1972, Ms. Cooper conferred with Mr. Marchiondo by telephone and offered $7,500 in settlement of Mr. Trujillo's claim. During this conversation, there was no mention made by either Ms. Cooper or Mr. Marchiondo as to whether or not the $7,500 would include the payments previously made by defendant Glen Falls. Subsequently, Ms. Cooper forwarded a release and check totaling $4,531.47. The release was based on the check sent to Mr. Marchiondo, $2,380.13 in previous payments, plus an additional amount to be paid to Dr. Myron Rosenbaum for medical expenses. Immediately thereafter, Mr. Marchiondo returned the release and check to Ms. Cooper, indicating that he was under the impression that the $7,500 was 'over and above' the previous payments. Suit was then brought by plaintiff against Glen Falls, Underwriters and Betty Cooper for specific performance of the alleged $7,500 oral agreement. Defendants denied the formation of any contract whatsoever.

After trial without a jury, the court concluded that the parties were under a mutual mistake of fact, there was no 'meeting of the minds,' defendant Betty Cooper was without authority to offer more than a total of $7,500 in settlement, and thus no enforceable contract was entered into. On November 20, 1973, plaintiff filed a timely notice of appeal.

Plaintiff's contention on appeal is that a contract was formed based on the objective manifestations of the parties; that this contract should be interpreted according to the mutually expressed assent of the parties; and that the undisclosed or secret intent of one party is irrelevant.

It is elementary in contract law that mutual assent must be expressed by the parties to the agreement. This court stated in Lamonica v. Bosenberg,73 N.M. 452, 455, 389 P.2d 216, 217 (1964):

'When the minds of the parties have not met on any part or provision of a proposed contract, all of its portions are a nullity. (Citations omitted.) * * *.'

In support of this principle the court cited the case of West v. Downer, 218 Ga. 235 241, 127 S.E.2d 359, 364 (1962), where it is stated:

'* * *. The first requirement of the law relative to contracts is that there must be a meeting of the minds of the parties, and mutuality, (Citations omitted,) and in order for the contract to be valid the agreement must ordinarily be expressed plainly and explicitly enough to show what the parties agreed upon. (Citations omitted.) * * *.'

This mutuality requirement must be found in the objective manifestations of the parties.

'* * *. The court was bound to look to appellant's express assent. It could not regard his secret or undisclosed intent. * * *'

Higgins v. Cauhape, 33 N.M. 11, 14, 261 P. 813, 814 (1927). See also State ex rel. Santa Fe Sand & G. Co. v. Pecos Const. Co., 86 N.M. 58, 61, 519 P.2d 294, 297 (1974), where this court said:

'* * *. Also, the controlling intention of the parties is the mutually expressed assent and not the secret intent of a party. * * *'

And according to 17 C.J.S. Contracts § 32, at 640 (1963):

'The apparent mutual assent, essential to the formation of a contract, must be gathered from the language employed by them, or manifested by their words or acts, and it may be manifested...

To continue reading

Request your trial
33 cases
  • Tyler Grp. Partners, LLC v. Madera
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 10th Circuit. District of New Mexico
    • 30 September 2021
    ...any part or provision of a proposed contract, all of its portions are a nullity.’ " Trujillo v. Glen Falls Ins. Co., 1975-NMSC-046, ¶ 6, 88 N.M. 279, 280, 540 P.2d 209, 210 (quoting Lamonica v. Bosenberg, 1964-NMSC-024, ¶ 8, 73 N.M. 452, 455, 389 P.2d 216, 217 ). Courts look to the "objecti......
  • Gutierrez v. Sundancer Indian Jewelry, Inc., 13767
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of New Mexico
    • 16 December 1993
    ...that a mutual agreement was objectively manifested by each party." This reading of Garcia is consistent with Trujillo v. Glen Falls Insurance Co., 88 N.M. 279, 540 P.2d 209 (1975), which was cited byGarcia as the support for the quoted proposition. Trujillo, after quoting a Georgia opinion ......
  • Tyler Grp. Partners v. Madera
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 10th Circuit. District of New Mexico
    • 30 September 2021
    ...on any part or provision of a proposed contract, all of its portions are a nullity.'” Trujillo v. Glen Falls Ins. Co., 1975-NMSC-046, ¶ 6, 88 N.M. 279, 280, 540 P.2d 209, 210 (quoting Lamonica v. Bosenberg, 1964-NMSC-024, ¶ 8, 73 N.M. 452, 455, 389 P.2d 216, 217). Courts look to the “object......
  • Tyler Grp. Partners v. Madera
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 10th Circuit. District of New Mexico
    • 30 September 2021
    ...on any part or provision of a proposed contract, all of its portions are a nullity.'” Trujillo v. Glen Falls Ins. Co., 1975-NMSC-046, ¶ 6, 88 N.M. 279, 280, 540 P.2d 209, 210 (quoting Lamonica v. Bosenberg, 1964-NMSC-024, ¶ 8, 73 N.M. 452, 455, 389 P.2d 216, 217). Courts look to the “object......
  • 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