1. A. The district or magistrate court of this state may exercise jurisdiction over any person with respect to any conduct in this state governed by the Uniform Owner-Resident Relations Act or with respect to any claim arising from a transaction subject to this act for a dwelling unit located within its jurisdictional boundaries. In addition to any other method provided by rule or by statute, personal jurisdiction over a person may be acquired in a civil action or proceeding instituted in the district or magistrate court by the service of process in the manner provided by this section.
2. B. If a person is not a resident of this state or is a corporation not authorized to do business in this state and engages in any conduct in this state governed by the Uniform Owner-Resident Relations Act, or engages in a transaction subject to this act, he may designate an agent upon whom service of process may be made in this state. The agent shall be a resident of this state or a corporation authorized to do business in this state. The designation shall be in writing and shall be filed with the secretary of state. If no designation is made and filed or if process cannot be served in this state upon the designated agent, process may be served upon the secretary of state, but service upon him is not effective unless the plaintiff or petitioner immediately mails a copy of the process and pleading by registered or certified mail to the defendant or respondent at his last reasonably ascertainable address. An affidavit of compliance with this section shall be filed with the clerk of the court on or before the return day of the process, if any, or within any further time the court allows.

History: 1953 Comp., § 70-7-10, enacted by Laws 1975, ch. 38, § 10.

ANNOTATIONS

Magistrate court had subject matter jurisdiction when it decided claim for possession. — Where the parties entered into a lease option contract pursuant to which plaintiff agreed to lease and defendant agreed to rent a residential property in Vanderwagen, New Mexico for sixty months, and where the lease option contract included an option to purchase the residence at any time during the contract’s terms, and where defendant paid plaintiff $10,000 that defendant claimed to be a down payment toward the purchase price of the property but which was not mentioned in the lease option contract, and where defendant stopped making monthly payments on the property after two years, and where plaintiff filed a petition for restitution seeking possession of the property in magistrate court, and where the magistrate court granted the writ of restitution and awarded damages, past-due rent, and attorney fees, and where, on appeal, defendant claimed that the magistrate court did not have subject matter jurisdiction because defendant was not occupying the property pursuant to a rental agreement but pursuant to a contract for the sale of the real property, the magistrate court did not err in exercising jurisdiction because the plain language of the parties’ lease option contract demonstrates that the parties entered into a rental agreement as defined in NMSA 1978 § 47-8-3 and subject to the Uniform Owner-Resident Relations Act (UORRA), and the plain language of NMSA 1978 § 47-8-10(A) demonstrates that the legislature has endowed magistrate courts with subject matter jurisdiction over claims arising from any conduct in this state governed by the UORRA or with respect to any claim arising from a transaction subject to UORRA for a dwelling located within its jurisdictional boundaries. White v. Farris, 2021-NMCA-014.

District court had subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claim for damages pursuant to its original jurisdiction. — Where the parties entered into a lease option contract pursuant to which plaintiff agreed to lease and defendant agreed to rent a residential property in Vanderwagen, New Mexico for sixty months, and where the lease option contract included an option to purchase the residence at any time during the contract’s terms, and where defendant paid plaintiff $10,000, which was not mentioned in the lease option contract but which defendant claimed to be a down payment toward the purchase price of the property, and where defendant stopped making monthly payments on the property after two years, and where plaintiff filed a petition for restitution seeking possession of the property in magistrate court, and where the magistrate court granted the writ of restitution and awarded damages, past-due rent, and attorney fees, and where, on de novo appeal, the district court ruled in plaintiff’s favor on all issues and awarded plaintiff back-rent, damages over $10,000, and attorney fees, and where defendant argued that the district court did not have subject matter jurisdiction, arguing that the grant of authority to magistrate courts would have prevented the district court, on de novo appeal, from awarding more than $10,000 in damages, the district court did not err in exercising jurisdiction because the district court decided plaintiff’s claim for damages pursuant to its original jurisdiction and therefore any limits on the district court’s de novo appellate jurisdiction did not apply here. White v. Farris, 2021-NMCA-014.