N.M. Stat. Ann. § 47-8-48
History: 1953 Comp., § 70-7-48, enacted by Laws 1975, ch. 38, § 48; 1995, ch. 195, § 23; 2025, ch. 122, § 7.
The 2025 amendment, effective June 20, 2025, expanded private remedies; in the section heading, deleted "civil penalties" and added "private enforcement"; added new Subsection B and redesignated former Subsections B and C as Subsections C and D, respectively; in Subsection C, after "shall be" deleted "subject to a civil penalty equal to" and added "liable for"; and in Subsection D, after "shall be" deleted "subject to a civil penalty equal to" and added "liable for".
The 1995 amendment, effective July 1, 1995, designated the existing language as Subsection A, and in that subsection, substituted "or to enforce any provisions" for "entered into pursuant to the terms", and substituted "attorneys' " for "attorney's"; and added Subsections B and C.
Determination of reasonable attorney fees. — Where a fire, that was negligently caused by defendant, destroyed plaintiff’s personal property in a mobile home that plaintiff rented from defendant; the jury awarded plaintiff $25,000 in compensatory damages; plaintiff sought $70,318 in attorney fees based on the lodestar calculation of time spent on the case and the hourly rate charged by plaintiff’s counsel; and on the grounds that plaintiff’s attorney fees were almost three times the jury award and that the case involved only property damage and no broader public policy, the district court applied a proportional test and awarded plaintiff $10,000 in attorney fees with an offset of $5,000 for defendant’s successful defense of plaintiff’s claims for punitive damages, emotional stress damages, and civil penalty damages, the district court abused its discretion because the district court failed to consider the public policy goals of the Uniform Owner-Resident Relations Act to encourage compliance with the act and because the district court failed to consider a lodestar analysis or any objective analysis of the facts in determining attorney fees. Behrens v. Gateway Court, L.L.C., 2013-NMCA-097, cert. granted, 2013-NMCERT-009.
Prevailing party. — The "prevailing party" is the party who wins on the merits or on the main issue of the case. Hedicke v. Gunville, 2003-NMCA-032, 133 N.M. 335, 62 P.3d 1217, cert. denied, 133 N.M. 413, 63 P.3d 516.
Landlord, as the prevailing party, was entitled to attorney fees and costs. — Where tenants signed a lease agreement with landlord to rent the subject property for a term of sixteen months, and where the parties subsequently agreed to end the lease several months early, and where landlord sent tenants an accounting that itemized deductions from tenants' damage deposit, and where tenants filed a complaint contesting the amount landlord deducted from their damage deposit and landlord filed a cross-claim stating that she was entitled to additional damages beyond those itemized in the deductions, and where tenants claimed that, 47-8-18(C) and 47-8-18(D) NMSA 1978 require a landlord to provide a tenant with an itemized listing of all damages to property within thirty days of the date the lease ends, and any claim for damages not then identified is forfeited, and where the district rejected tenants' argument, concluding that the plain meaning of 47-8-18 NMSA 1978 only prohibits a landlord from filing an independent claim for damages if the landlord failed to comply with the statute's terms regarding return of the damage deposit, and awarded landlord, as the prevailing party, attorney fees and costs, the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that landlord was the prevailing party, because landlord prevailed on the main issue in her cross-claim and tenants were found liable for over $2,300 in damages to landlord's property. Stodgell v. Weissman, 2025-NMCA-003, cert. denied.
Assessing attorneys' fees. — Assessing attorneys' fees need not be mechanistic or formalistic, but as governed by, and should be apportioned according to, the facts and circumstances of the case and the extent to which the parties, in fact, prevailed. Hedicke v. Gunville, 2003-NMCA-032, 133 N.M. 335, 62 P.3d 1217, cert. denied, 133 N.M. 413, 63 P.3d 516.
Prevailing parties are entitled to award of reasonable attorney fees. — Where tenants brought action against apartment owner and manager for violations of the New Mexico Unfair Practices Act (UPA), §§ 57-12-1 through § 57-12-26 NMSA 1978, and the New Mexico Uniform Owner-Resident Relations Act (UORRA), §§ 47-8-1 through § 47-8-52 NMSA 1978, and where the parties reached a settlement agreement on all issues except attorney fees, plaintiffs were entitled to reasonable attorney fees, notwithstanding the fact that the damage award was small, because plaintiffs successfully prosecuted their UPA and UORRA claims; the amount involved and the results obtained are only one factor among several the court may consider to determine a reasonable attorney fee. Fallen v. GREP Southwest, LLC, 247 F.Supp.3d 1165 (2017).
Law reviews. — For survey, "The Uniform Owner-Resident Relations Act," see 6 N.M.L. Rev. 293 (1976).
Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — 51C C.J.S. Landlord and Tenant §§ 247(2), 250(2).