Legal Opinion

Naumburg v. Pattison

New Mexico Supreme Court

Decided December 30, 1985No. 15351PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

SOSA, Senior Justice.

Due to defendants’ refusal to accept prepayment on a real estate contract, plaintiffs, relying on the Residential Home Loan Act (RHLA), sought a declaratory judgment, an injunction and damages. Defendants answered and brought a counterclaim seeking recission in the event the trial court declared plaintiffs’ right to prepay. The trial court found that the RHLA did not apply; nevertheless, the court held that plaintiffs were entitled to prepay the contract provided they also pay defendants a reasonable penalty for prepayment. We reverse the trial court except as to…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Zion's Properties, Inc. v. HoltUtah Supreme Court · 1975
  2. Letha Cantrell Guthrie v. Finis CurnuttCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1969
  3. Davis v. Commissioner of RevenueNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1971
  4. Dunn v. LigonCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1968
  5. ACTION DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. WoodallCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1974

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Bank of America National Trust & Savings Ass'n v. ShirleyCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1996
  2. Prudential Insurance Co. of America v. Rand & Reed Powers PartnershipDistrict Court, N.D. Iowa · 1997
  3. Miller v. JohnsonNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1998
  4. Bank Of America National Trust And Savings Association v. Bobby T. ShirleyCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1996
  5. Naumburg v. PattisonNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1985

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API