After reading Tafoya v. Perkins, how did you react to the evidence in the case? Did it strike you as incomplete? If so, what additional information would you like to have if you were deciding the case?

Based on the text of the case, the plaintiff's evidence appears to be extremely weak and could certainly be considered incomplete.   
The plaintiff's (Lafoya) attorney should have presented more evidence of the partnership agreement. The attorney should have recognized the statute of limitations issue and realized he would have to rely upon Sec. 13-80-103.5 (the cause of action with the 6-year statute of limitations) to bring his case.
To prove there was a "determinable amount of money" at issue under the above-mentioned section, the plaintiff's attorney would have had to prove what share of profits Lafoya was to receive from the partnership agreement. The attorney could have done this by producing a written partnership agreement. However, partnerships are often formed without a written agreement. If that was the case here, then the plaintiff would need to provide some extrinsic evidence (coming from a source other than an actual writing) of the partnership agreement. Such extrinsic evidence could have been in the form of pay stubs, letters or emails between the parties, etc.
If I was deciding this case I would like to have evidence of the partnership agreement, as mentioned above. However, it is not the judge's duty to present a party's case, and moreover, an appellate judge is bound by the findings of the lower court in deciding the outcome of an appeal.  
  

The evidence in this case struck me as incomplete. Tafoya, the plaintiff, stated that in cases in which there is an "unliquidated, determinable amount of money," there should be a six-year rather than a two-year statute of limitations. However, the judge ruled that the plaintiff's assertion that there should be a six-year statute of limitations on taking action in the case was wrong because the judge could not determine this amount of money due from looking at the original partnership agreement. It seems like what is missing in this case is the purchase agreement of the apartment complex from 1994 so that the judge could determine the amount of money that was in question. If the judge had this information, the judge could determine the amount of money in question and grant a longer period for the statue of limitations. Therefore, Tafoya might have had a claim to the money resulting from the sale of the apartment complex. You may also determine that other evidence was missing in this case.