Washington Ins. Co., 117 N.M. 337, 342, 871 P.2d 1343, 1348 (1994). From the deposition testimony presented by Hansen, we are able to discern nothing new about the meaning attributed to the language of the release by the Peases and their insurance company. Because Hansen’s deposition discloses only her unilateral, subjective intent, it was insufficient in itself to establish an ambiguity in the terms of the release. For similar reasons, Hansen’s testimony was insufficient to establish a mutual mistake. Finally, Hansen did not adduce any evidence of fraud or overreaching that would establish grounds to void the release. Thus, even if the trial court refused to consider Hansen’s deposition testimony, we would not reverse the entry of summary judgment on this ground. Ts Tex.1971) (<HOLDING>); Bjork v. Chrysler Corp., 702 P.2d 146, 162-63
holding that issues which are not specifically raised and argued in a partys opening brief are waived holding that antecedent debts will not be deemed within a dragnet clause unless they are specifically identified in the instrument holding issues that are not specifically raised and argued in a partys opening brief are waived holding that in order to fulfill legislative intent to abolish commonlaw release rule general release must specifically identify parties to be released holding that parties not specifically identified are not released