N.M. Stat. Ann. § 57-12-6
B. Except as provided in Subsections C and D of this section, a seller of a motor vehicle shall furnish at the time of sale of a motor vehicle an affidavit that:
History: 1953 Comp., § 49-15-5.1(B), enacted by Laws 1971, ch. 274, § 1, and recompiled as 1953 Comp., § 49-15-5.1 by Laws 1977, ch. 181, § 4; 1981, ch. 361, § 1; 1991, ch. 232, § 1; 1995, ch. 10, § 1.
The 1995 amendment, effective June 16, 1995, substituted "Subsections C and D of this section" for "this subsection" in the introductory paragraph of Subsection B; in Subsection C, substituted the language beginning "the flat rate manual" for "the vehicle is a new vehicle and the cost of the alteration or chassis repair is less than three hundred dollars ($300)" and deleted the former second sentence, defining "new vehicle"; and deleted "to another private party" following "vehicle" and "private" following "purchasing" in Subsection D.
The 1991 amendment, effective June 14, 1991, in Subsection A, added the language beginning with "unless the alleged misrepresentation" at the end of the first sentence and added the second sentence; added Subsections C and E; redesignated Subsection C as Subsection D and Subsection D as Subsection F; and made a minor stylistic change in Subsection B.
An affidavit is required to ensure that sellers disclose the age or condition of a motor vehicle and to provide evidence to that effect. — Where the parties brought claims against each other arising from the sale of a used car, and where, prior to trial, the district court granted partial summary judgment to plaintiff on a claim arising under the Unfair Practices Act (UPA), 57-12-1 to 57-12-26 NMSA 1978, that defendant willfully misrepresented the age or condition of the used vehicle, and where, after the parties presented evidence at trial, the district court granted plaintiff's motion for judgment as a matter of law on defendant's counterclaim for breach of contract and the jury found for defendant on plaintiff's other UPA claims, but awarded no damages, the district court did not err in granting partial summary judgment to plaintiff on the claim that defendant failed to disclose the age or condition of the motor vehicle, because under 57-12-6 NMSA 1978, the undisputed material facts showed that an affidavit from the dealer as to the age and condition of the car was required, and because plaintiff did not receive an affidavit from defendant as to whether there had been an alteration or chassis repair due to wreck damage, plaintiff established as a matter of law that defendant violated 57-12-6 NMSA 1978. Hernandez v. Outwest Auto Corral, LLC, 2025-NMCA-001, cert. denied.
Judgment as a matter of law was proper where defendant failed to present evidence of damages for breach of contract. — Where the parties brought claims against each other arising from the sale of a used car, and where, prior to trial, the district court granted partial summary judgment to plaintiff on a claim arising under the Unfair Practices Act (UPA), 57-12-1 to 57-12-26 NMSA 1978, that defendant willfully misrepresented the age or condition of the used vehicle, and where, after the parties presented evidence at trial, the district court granted plaintiff's motion for judgment as a matter of law on defendant's counterclaim for breach of contract and the jury found for defendant on plaintiff's other UPA claims, but awarded no damages, the district court did not err in granting plaintiff's motion for judgment as a matter of law on defendant's breach of contract claim, because defendant admitted at trial that plaintiff did not owe anything on the vehicle and defendant presented no evidence to the jury to support an award of attorney fees and costs as damages for breach of contract. Hernandez v. Outwest Auto Corral, LLC, 2025-NMCA-001, cert. denied.
Defendant's counterclaim for malicious abuse of process was legally insufficient and properly dismissed. — Where the parties brought claims against each other arising from the sale of a used car, and where, prior to trial, the district court dismissed defendant's counterclaim for malicious abuse of process and granted partial summary judgment to plaintiff on a claim arising under the Unfair Practices Act (UPA), 57-12-1 to 57-12-26 NMSA 1978, that defendant willfully misrepresented the age or condition of the used vehicle, and where, after the parties presented evidence at trial, the district court granted plaintiff's motion for judgment as a matter of law on defendant's counterclaim for breach of contract and the jury found for defendant on plaintiff's other UPA claims, but awarded no damages, the district court did not err in dismissing defendant's malicious abuse of process claim, because the claim did not establish that plaintiff had no factual basis for the 57-12-6 NMSA 1978 claim or that plaintiff had no reasonable belief in the validity of the allegations of fact or law underlying the claim. Hernandez v. Outwest Auto Corral, LLC, 2025-NMCA-001, cert. denied.
"Altered" construed. — Within the context of Subsection B, goods are "altered" if, as measured against the reasonable expectations of the consumer, the characteristics or value of the motor vehicle are affected in a meaningful way. Hale v. Basin Motor Co., 1990-NMSC-068, 110 N.M. 314, 795 P.2d 1006.
"Due to wreck damage" construed. — The phrase "due to wreck damage" in Subsection B(2) modifies only "chassis repair" and not "alteration." Hale v. Basin Motor Co., 1990-NMSC-068, 110 N.M. 314, 795 P.2d 1006.
Alteration found. — Evidence showing that right front fender was replaced, right door frame was straightened, holes were drilled in the door panel to pull out a dent, sheet metal in the damaged area was ground down and resurfaced with body filler, and the damaged area was repainted was sufficient to support finding that vehicle was altered within the meaning of Subsection B. Hale v. Basin Motor Co., 1990-NMSC-068, 110 N.M. 314, 795 P.2d 1006.
Arbitration agreement that barred punitive damages did not constitute an unconscionable contract term. — Where plaintiff purchased a 2018 chevrolet vehicle from defendants, and in the process of purchasing the vehicle, plaintiff signed an order agreement and bill of sale, which contained an arbitration provision and a damages limitation provision stating that the dealer was not liable for punitive damages arising out of the sale or use of the vehicle, and where plaintiff filed a complaint in district court, alleging that in the process of purchasing the vehicle, the dealership failed to accurately convey the car's prior damage in order to sell a defective product, and where defendants moved to compel arbitration under the agreement, and where plaintiff opposed the motion, arguing that the arbitration agreement should not be enforced because the contract was unconscionable, primarily because the punitive damages limitation provision restricts access to statutorily mandated treble damages under the Unfair Practice Act provided by the legislature, the district court did not err in its determination that the contract and the arbitration provision must be enforced, because although the damages provision was facially one-sided in that it disclaimed any punitive damages against the car dealer only, the contract was not unconscionable because the only damages the provision at issue excluded were common law punitive damages not granted by the legislature, leaving the statutory treble damages available to plaintiff. Rojas v. Reliable Chevrolet (NM), LLC, 2024-NMCA-003.
Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — Liability on implied warranties in sale of used motor vehicle, 47 A.L.R.5th 677.