Tom Growney Equipment, Inc. v. Ansley (1994)
Decided: December 2, 1994; certiorari denied January 17, 1995. Full primary opinion retrieved on an unofficial reporter host; reader-only versus raw-body provenance is identified in the New Mexico source catalog. growney
Source note (2026-10-18):
- source replaced 2026-10-18: static.case.law robots-disallowed; official copy at NM OneSource (New Mexico Compilation Commission, official) (replaces
https://static.case.law/nm/119/cases/0110-01.json; retrieval dates stated elsewhere on this page refer to the earlier copy). - source replaced 2026-10-18: static.case.law robots-disallowed; official copy at NM OneSource (New Mexico Compilation Commission, official) (replaces
https://static.case.law/nm/129/cases/0200-01.json; retrieval dates stated elsewhere on this page refer to the earlier copy).
Facts
Ansley sold a backhoe on credit to Edwards and retained an unrecorded security interest. Edwards ordered repairs. The repairer accepted Edwards’s promissory note and released possession; Edwards defaulted, and Ansley repossessed. The district court rejected contract/lien recovery against Ansley but awarded USD7,002.53 in quantum meruit. growney
Holding and disposition
Reversed and remanded for judgment for Ansley. The repairer could not impose restitution for improvements on an owner who neither requested nor authorized them and did not knowingly encourage the benefit. It had voluntarily relinquished its possessory statutory security by accepting the note and releasing the backhoe. The owner’s failure to record did not revive the waived protection. growney
Reasoning and complete remedial treatment
The court adopted the orthodox Restatement of Restitution §42(2) approach: not every enrichment is unjust, and forcing payment for an unwanted benefit may create the greater injustice. The repairer had a lien superior even to recorded liens while possession continued for authorized repairs; it elected instead to rely on Edwards’s credit. The added-value offset in an owner’s conversion action did not help because Ansley had not sued the repairer in conversion. growney
Practical impact and limits
No foreclosure sale occurred in this case. It does not hold that every repair-lien auction erases every senior lender or that FAA/MVD records can be changed merely by asserting priority. Current §48-3-1 has specified dishonored-payment/illegal-loss continuation rules; the opinion’s voluntary promissory-note release is not that exception. growney
Treatment and currentness boundary
The full later Ontiveros Insulation Co. v. Sanchez, 2000-NMCA-051, 129 N.M.200, 3 P.3d695, paragraphs11,14,20, cites this restitution reasoning and distinguishes the knowledge facts where homeowners should have known essential building work would occur. That later opinion does not overrule the possession-waiver holding. Official retained §48-3-1 annotations also cite the decision. Targeted treatment review is not an exhaustive negative-treatment search or comprehensive still-good-law certificate. growney treatment-ontiveros
Applies in →
new-mexico · court-ordered-administrative-and-creditor-sales
Disclaimer. This page is legal information, not legal advice. It summarizes a court decision that may have been limited or distinguished by later authority. Nothing here creates an attorney-client relationship. Read the full opinion and consult a licensed attorney before acting.