An Angel Fire HOA won on the homeowner's own deposition answers
An Angel Fire HOA won on the homeowner's own deposition answers
2026-09-15 · New Mexico · Courts
A homeowner sued his Angel Fire association, lost on summary judgment, and lost the appeal — on the strength of his own answers in discovery.1
The case
Judkins v. Angel Fire Chalets HOA, No. A-1-CA-42871, filed August 10, 2026 in the New Mexico Court of Appeals, on appeal from the District Court of Colfax County. It is a memorandum opinion and not precedent.
A self-represented homeowner sued his association for breach of duty and damages arising from his membership. The district court granted the association summary judgment. The Court of Appeals affirmed on the summary calendar and denied his motion to certify a question to the Supreme Court.
How the association made its case
This is the mechanically useful part. The association made its prima facie showing using the homeowner's own interrogatory answers and deposition testimony, in which he admitted that he was either not seeking damages, could not prove damages, or would not produce documents because he lacked supporting evidence.
The burden then shifted to him. He responded by re-asserting the allegations in his complaint and pointing to twenty-eight pages of verified claims and photographs attached to it. Under New Mexico summary-judgment practice, that is not enough:
“Although Plaintiff continues to cite to his complaint to create a genuine issue of material fact, Plaintiff 'may not simply argue that such evidentiary facts might exist, nor may it rest upon the allegations of the complaint. Rather, the party opposing the summary judgment motion must adduce evidence to justify a trial on the issues.'”
The jury-trial argument
He argued that granting summary judgment stripped him of his right to a jury trial. The court's answer is the standard one and worth knowing before making the argument:
“Summary judgment is appropriate when there are no disputed material facts of the case, and therefore 'cannot intrude upon the province of a jury, because it is the presence of disputed questions of fact that triggers the need for a jury's work.'”
The statewide order that went nowhere
He also asked the Court of Appeals to enter a cease-and-desist order against every homeowners association in New Mexico, on the theory that associations hide behind different incorporation statutes to escape liability.
“Plaintiff … alleg[es] that Defendant hides behind different statutes to escape liability. … Plaintiff requests that we both enter a cease-and-desist order preventing Defendant from continuing this practice, and enter an order requiring all homeowners associations in New Mexico do the same to prevent any further deception. … But again, Plaintiff did not raise this claim in the district court, and therefore we decline to address Plaintiff's argument or the relief requested further.”
And on the record generally: “We decline Plaintiff's invitation to audit the record proper on his behalf. Doing so would usurp Plaintiff's burden on appeal to establish error on his own behalf and unfairly prejudice Defendant by developing arguments on Plaintiff's behalf.”
What this means for an owner
An association dispute is won or lost in discovery, not in the complaint. Three things decided this one.
Admissions bind you. Answers to interrogatories and testimony at deposition are evidence the other side gets to use. An owner who says under oath that they cannot prove damages has handed the association its motion.
Photographs attached to a complaint are not evidence for summary judgment. They have to come in through an affidavit, a declaration, deposition testimony or a discovery response. Attaching them to a pleading does not put them before the court in admissible form.
An argument not raised below is gone. The most interesting claim in the case — about which incorporation statute the association operates under — was never presented to the district court, so the Court of Appeals refused to reach it.
What it means for a board
Almost nothing about the association's substantive obligations was decided. The court affirmed on the record the homeowner built. A board reading this as a ruling that the association was right about anything is reading it wrong.
The one genuinely open item is worth flagging, because it has not gone away: the question of which incorporation statute a New Mexico association operates under, and what follows from that, is unaddressed in New Mexico appellate law. The court declined to reach it on procedural grounds, not on the merits.
That matters because most New Mexico associations are incorporated nonprofits, subject simultaneously to the Nonprofit Corporation Act at Chapter 53, Article 8 and to the Homeowner Association Act at Chapter 47, Article 16, with different provisions on meetings, records, member rights and director conduct. Which governs where they differ is a question New Mexico's appellate courts have not answered.
Related New Mexico HOA Topics
Stay on top of New Mexico HOA law
Every week: new New Mexico legislation, court rulings, and regulatory developments affecting condos, planned communities, and property managers. Free.
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.