468, 470 n. 1 (Ct.App. 1995); see also Hutcherson, 107 N.M. at 361, 758 P.2d at 311 (when material facts are disputed, trial court may not determine issues summarily; instead, such issues must be resolved at trial). By entering findings of fact, the courts demonstrated that factual disputes existed which should have precluded summary judgment. {46} In sum, the record indicates that the depositions and documentary evidence relied upon by Peterson were sufficient to rebut Defendants’ claims that he was aware of the basis for his claim against each of the Defendants in the second cause of action more than four years prior to the running of the statute of limitations or that there were no material, disputed factual issues supporting his claims. See Montoya, 120 N.M. at 553, 903 P.2d at 864 (<HOLDING>); see also Bolton v. Board of County Comm’rs,
holding that inquiry notice triggers an investors duty to exercise reasonable diligence and that the  statute of limitations period begins to run once the investor in the exercise of reasonable diligence should have discovered the facts underlying the alleged fraud holding that disputed factual issue existed as to whether claimant knew or by exercise of reasonable diligence should have known prior to running of statute of limitations existence of compensable claim holding that government did not suppress evidence when defendant knew about the existence of the evidence and could obtain it through the exercise of reasonable diligence holding that a cause of action accrues when the claimant knew or reasonably should have known of the wrong holding that the statute of limitations begins to run under federal law when plaintiffs knew or should have known of the injury which forms the basis of their claims