N.M. Stat. Ann. § 47-15-3
A. A foreclosure consulting contract shall:
(7) contain the following notice, which shall be printed in at least fourteen-point boldface type, completed with the name of the foreclosure consultant, and located in immediate proximity to the space reserved for the owner's signature:
"NOTICE REQUIRED BY NEW MEXICO LAW
THIS IS AN IMPORTANT LEGAL CONTRACT AND COULD RESULT IN THE LOSS OF YOUR HOME. CONTACT AN ATTORNEY OR COUNSELOR BEFORE SIGNING."
(2) the date the owner signed the contract.
C. A foreclosure consulting contract shall be accompanied by a completed form in duplicate, captioned "NOTICE OF RESCISSION RIGHTS", which shall:
(3) contain the following statement printed in at least fifteen-point type:
"NOTICE OF RESCISSION RIGHTS (Date of Contract)
B. A foreclosure consulting contract shall contain on the first page, in at least fourteen-point type:
THIS IS AN IMPORTANT LEGAL CONTRACT AND COULD RESULT IN THE LOSS OF YOUR HOME. CONTACT AN ATTORNEY OR COUNSELOR BEFORE SIGNING.
RESCISSION OF CONTRACT FORM
.......... (Homeowner's signature)".
D. The foreclosure consultant shall provide the owner with a signed and dated copy of the foreclosure consulting contract and the attached notice of rescission rights and rescission of contract form immediately upon execution of the contract.
E. The time during which the owner may rescind the foreclosure consulting contract does not begin to run until the foreclosure consultant has complied with this section and the owner has signed the contract.
History: Laws 2010, ch. 58, § 3.
Effective dates. — Laws 2010, ch. 58 contained no effective date provision, but, pursuant to N.M. Const., art. IV, § 23, was effective May 19, 2010, 90 days after the adjournment of the legislature.
Severability. — Laws 2010, ch. 58 § 9 provided if any provision of the Mortgage Foreclosure Consultant Fraud Prevention Act or the application of any of its provisions to any person or circumstance is held to be unconstitutional and void, the remainder of the Mortgage Foreclosure Consultant Fraud Prevention Act remains valid.
Law firm and individual attorneys were liable for violations of the Mortgage Foreclosure Consultant Fraud Prevention Act. — Where the state of New Mexico brought an action against certain California law firms and individual lawyers, alleging defendants violated the Mortgage Foreclosure Consultant Fraud Prevention Act (MFCFPA), §§ 47-15-1 through 47-15-8 NMSA 1978, and where it was established at trial that defendants performed or offered to perform services, such as obtaining a loan modification or reducing loan payments, that they claimed they would save a home from foreclosure for individuals who entered foreclosure services, and that through their fee agreements, defendants accepted advance payment for mortgage foreclosure relief and consultant services, defendants' activities satisfied the MFCFPA's requirements that, to be a foreclosure consultant, a person or an entity provide services to a homeowner to delay or postpone foreclosure sales through litigation, defendants' conduct violated the MFCFPA because it is a violation for a foreclosure consultant to claim, demand, charge collect or receive any compensation until after the foreclosure consultant has fully performed every service the foreclosure consultant contracted to perform or represented the consultant would perform, and defendants' fee agreements did not comply with several of the warnings, notices, and disclosures required by the MFCFPA regarding foreclosure consultant contracts. Moreover, the MFCFPA's attorney exemption did not apply because defendants were not licensed in New Mexico as required by § 47-15-2(B)(2)(a) NMSA 1978. New Mexico ex rel. Balderas v. Real Estate Law Center, PC, 430 F. Supp. 3d 761 (D. N.M. 2019).
Accepting advance payment for mortgage foreclosure relief is a violation of the Mortgage Foreclosure Consultant Fraud Prevention Act. — Where the state of New Mexico (plaintiff) brought an action against two attorneys and the mortgage assistance company they owned, alleging defendants violated the Mortgage Foreclosure Consultant Fraud Prevention Act (MFCFPA), §§ 47-15-1 through 47-15-8 NMSA 1978, by accepting advance payment for mortgage foreclosure relief and consultant services, and where defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that plaintiff cannot show that defendants were foreclosure consultants or that defendants provided mortgage relief services, and, as attorneys, they were exempt from the reach of the MFCFPA, summary judgment was not appropriate, because the MFCFPA's attorney exemption did not apply because defendants were not licensed in New Mexico as required by § 47-15-2(B)(2)(a), and there were genuine issue of material fact where plaintiff presented evidence that defendants offered clients help with preventing foreclosure and modifying their mortgages, that defendants received compensation before they fully performed every service they contracted to perform or represented that they would perform, and that defendants' fee agreement did not comply with several of the warnings, notices, and disclosures required by § 47-15-3 NMSA 1978. New Mexico ex rel. Balderas v. Real Estate Law Center, PC, 401 F. Supp.3d 1229 (D. N.M. 2019).