1. A. The board of county commissioners, the district attorney or the attorney general may apply to the district court for any one or more of the following remedies in connection with violations of the New Mexico Subdivision Act and county subdivision regulations:

   1. (1) injunctive relief to prohibit a subdivider from selling, leasing or otherwise conveying an interest in subdivided land until he complies with the terms of the New Mexico Subdivision Act and county subdivision regulations;
   2. (2) mandatory injunctive relief to compel compliance by any person with the provisions of the New Mexico Subdivision Act and county subdivision regulations;
   3. (3) rescission and restitution for persons who have purchased, leased or otherwise acquired an interest in subdivided land that was divided, sold, leased or otherwise conveyed in material violation of the New Mexico Subdivision Act or county subdivision regulations; or
   4. (4) a civil penalty of up to five thousand dollars ($5,000) for each parcel created in knowing, intentional or willful material violation of the New Mexico Subdivision Act or county subdivision regulations.
2. B. The board of county commissioners, the district attorney and the attorney general shall not be required to post bond when seeking a temporary or permanent injunction or mandamus pursuant to the provisions of the New Mexico Subdivision Act.
3. C. In any action by the attorney general pursuant to the New Mexico Subdivision Act, venue shall be proper in the district court of any county where all or part of the land is situated or the district court of the county where the defendant resides.
4. D. Nothing in this section shall be construed as limiting any common-law right of any person in any court relating to subdivisions.

History: 1953 Comp., § 70-5-26, enacted by Laws 1973, ch. 348, § 26; 1979, ch. 172, § 3; 1995, ch. 212, § 28.

ANNOTATIONS

Bracketed material. — The bracketed words "this article" In Subsection A were added by the compiler and are not part of the law.

Cross references. — For mandamus, see 44-2-1 NMSA 1978 et seq.

The 1995 amendment, effective July 1, 1996, rewrote the section to such an extent that a detailed comparison would be impracticable.

Retroactive application. — This section could be applied retrospectively to authorize the attorney general to seek injunctive relief to compel the defendants to comply with this act as a result of activity engaged in prior to the 1979 amendment of this section. State ex rel. Stratton v. Alto Land & Cattle Co., 1991-NMCA-146, 113 N.M. 276, 824 P.2d 1078.

Common-law rights not extended to enforcement. — The legislature did not provide, through this section, that a person's common-law rights shall extend to the enforcement of the New Mexico Subdivision Act. Gabaldon v. Sanchez, 1978-NMCA-103, 92 N.M. 224, 585 P.2d 1105.

Order not authorized. — Order obtained by attorney general compelling performance by defendant subdividers of an act imposed only on a subdivider of a larger subdivision was not authorized under the Act. State ex rel. Stratton v. Alto Land & Cattle Co., 1991-NMCA-146, 113 N.M. 276, 824 P.2d 1078.

Law reviews. — For note, "State Securities Law: A Valuable Tool for Regulating Investment Land Sales," see 7 N.M.L. Rev. 265 (1977).

Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — 42 Am. Jur. 2d Injunctions § 296; 52 Am. Jur. 2d Mandamus § 131.

Injunction as a remedy for violation of zoning ordinance, 54 A.L.R. 366, 129 A.L.R. 885.

43A C.J.S. Injunctions § 133; 55 C.J.S. Mandamus § 210.