Sharts v. Natelson

I would reverse and remand to require the district court to enter judgment on behalf of Natelson.

I should begin by noting that the lead opinion does not represent the views of the majority of the panel. Both Judge Apodaca and I disagree with the analysis in that opinion. Indeed, although Judge Apodaca and I disagree with respect to the result, we generally agree on the appropriate legal analysis. Our disagreement is largely confined to the application of the continuous representation rule to this case.

Turning to the merits, Jaramillo v. Hood, 93 N.M. 433, 601 P.2d 66 (1979), held that a cause…