N.M. Stat. Ann. § 60-13-3
As used in the Construction Industries Licensing Act, "contractor":
A. means any person who undertakes, offers to undertake by bid or other means or purports to have the capacity to undertake, by himself or through others, contracting. Contracting includes constructing, altering, repairing, installing or demolishing any:
D. does not include:
(14) an individual who works on one undertaking or project at a time that, in the aggregate or singly, does not exceed seven thousand two hundred dollars ($7,200) compensation a year, the work being casual, minor or inconsequential, such as handyman repairs; provided that this exemption shall not apply to any undertaking or project pertaining to the installation, connection or repair of electrical wiring, plumbing or gas fitting as defined in Section 60-13-32 NMSA 1978 and provided:
History: 1953 Comp., § 67-35-3, enacted by Laws 1978, ch. 66, § 1; 1979, ch. 46, § 1; 1979, ch. 49, § 1; 1986, ch. 107, § 1; 1987, ch. 283, § 1; 1989, ch. 6, § 4; 1997, ch. 181, § 2; 1997, ch. 235, § 1; 1999, ch. 130, § 1.
Repeals and reenactments. — Laws 1978, ch. 66, § 1, repealed former 67-35-3, 1953 Comp. (former 60-13-3 NMSA 1978), as amended by Laws 1977, ch. 377, § 1, relating to definition of "contractor," and enacted a new 67-35-3, 1953 Comp.
The 1999 amendment, effective June 18, 1999, added Paragraph D(18); deleted "but not limited to" preceding "constructing" in Subsection A, preceding "plumbing fixtures" in Paragraph D(8), and preceding "handyman repairs" in Paragraph D(14); and made minor stylistic changes throughout the section.
The 1997 amendments. — Laws 1997, ch. 181, § 2, amending this section effective July 1, 1997 by adding a new Paragraph D(17) relating to persons performing needed repairs or maintenance to commercial property when the total amount paid for a single undertaking does not exceed $5,000, was approved April 10, 1997. However, Laws 1997, ch. 235, § 1, amending this section by adding new Paragraph D(17) relating to weatherization projects not exceeding $2,000, but not giving effect to the changes made by the first 1997 amendment, was approved April 11, 1997. This section was set out as amended by Laws 1997, ch. 235, § 1. See 12-1-8 NMSA 1978.
Contractor must have a license. — An individual who qualifies as a contractor under the definition of "contractor" in the Construction Industries Licensing Act is required to have a contractor’s license when performing the specific acts described in the Construction Industries Licensing Act, regardless of whether the individual can be classified as an employee of a licensed contractor under the common law control test. Reule Sun Corp. v. Valles, 2010-NMSC-004, 147 N.M. 512, 226 P.3d 611, rev’g 2008-NMCA-115, 144 N.M. 736, 191 P.3d 1197, overruling Latta v. Harvey, 1960-NMSC-046, 67 N.M. 72, 352 P.2d 649 and Campbell v. Smith, 1961-NMSC-059, 68 N.M. 373, 362 P.2d 523.
Common law control test does not apply. — The common law control test for determining whether an individual is an employee does not apply to determine whether an individual is required to have a license under the Construction Industries Licensing Act. An unlicensed contractor’s classification as an employee of a licensed contractor under the common law control test does not exempt the unlicensed contractor from the licensing requirements of the Construction Industries Licensing Act. Reule Sun Corp. v. Valles, 2010-NMSC-004, 147 N.M. 512, 226 P.3d 611, rev’g 2008-NMCA-115, 144 N.M. 736, 191 P.3d 1197, overruling Latta v. Harvey, 1960-NMSC-046, 67 N.M. 72, 352 P.2d 649 and Campbell v. Smith, 1961-NMSC-059, 68 N.M. 373, 362 P.2d 523.
Former Contractors' License Law of 1939 was not unconstitutional as a denial of due process since the legislature could enact laws in the exercise of its police powers, provided only that the exercise was not so unreasonable as to amount to confiscation of property or a denial of the right to engage in a particular trade, occupation or profession. Kaiser v. Thomson, 1951-NMSC-037, 55 N.M. 270, 232 P.2d 142.
Filing requirement does not bar eligibility for exemption. — The filing requirement in this section is directory, not mandatory, and as such does not to constitute a bar to the plaintiff's eligibility for the intended exemption. Stokes v. Tatman, 1990-NMSC-113, 111 N.M. 188, 803 P.2d 673.
"Contractor" status requires control of installation. — The ordering and delivering of materials or the mere arranging for their installation does not bring suppliers of materials into the realm of the definition of "contractor" under subsection A where they are not, and their contracts do not place them, in control of the installation. Verchinski v. Klein, 1987-NMSC-003, 105 N.M. 336, 732 P.2d 863.
"Contractor" status requires control of employees. — Where an employee leasing contractor that provided construction workers to the general contractor and the general contractor supervised and controlled the workers on the construction site, the employee leasing contractor did not act in the capacity of a contractor. Eastland Fin. Servs. v. Mendoza, 2002-NMCA-035, 132 N.M. 24, 43 P.3d 375.
Contractor when promise to mine and move copper ore. — A party who contracts to "perform certain mining work on copper siliceous ores" and to "pay for all labor, work, mining expenses, material, explosives and moving commercial copper ores to specified stockpile location" is a contractor within the terms of 67-16-2, 1953 Comp. (now repealed). Salter v. Kindom Uranium Corp., 1960-NMSC-040, 67 N.M. 34, 351 P.2d 375.
Contractor when no hourly wage, time slips, or employee tax forms. — Defendant was not an employee of the person for whom he had contracted to construct a trailer park, and was therefore required to obtain a contractor's license, where he never received an hourly wage, did not submit time slips or employee tax forms, and the evidence was uncontroverted that the work performed fell within the requirements of Subsection A. Mascarenas v. Jaramillo, 1991-NMSC-014, 111 N.M. 410, 806 P.2d 59.
Contracts for "incidental" work exempted under former law. — Failure to reemploy the word "incidental" in the 1945 amendment did not leave the former Contractors' License Act applicable to contracts for work which was only "incidental" to the occupations or pursuits named as being exempted from the act. B. & R. Drilling Co. v. Gardner, 1951-NMSC-004, 55 N.M. 118, 227 P.2d 627.
Test as to independent contractor or employee. — The principal test to determine whether one is an independent contractor or an employee is whether the employer has any control over the manner in which the details of the work are to be accomplished. Mere suggestions by the employer or the "directing control essential to coordinate the several parts of a larger undertaking" does not affect the relationship. It is the right to control, not the exercise of it, that furnishes the test. Campbell v. Smith, 1961-NMSC-059, 68 N.M. 373, 362 P.2d 523, overruled on other grounds by Sundance Mech. & Util. Corp. v. Atlas, 1990-NMSC-031, 109 N.M. 683, 789 P.2d 1250.
Independent contractor for assessment work. — Where plaintiff, an expert miner, who was working his adjoining claims was hired to watch defendant's claim and to do defendant's assessment work to consist of 70 feet of tunnel for an agreed price per foot, the details of the work to be left entirely to plaintiff, plaintiff was acting as an independent contractor in the assessment work. Campbell v. Smith, 1961-NMSC-059, 68 N.M. 373, 362 P.2d 523, overruled on other grounds by Sundance Mech. & Util. Corp. v. Atlas, 1990-NMSC-031, 109 N.M. 683, 789 P.2d 1250.
Removal of structures included. — Although the removal of structures is not specifically included within the items named, the section provides that contracting includes the altering of buildings, and altering has some meaning other than constructing, repairing, installing or demolishing; otherwise, all of the words would not have been used in the section. Fleming v. Phelps-Dodge Corp., 1972-NMCA-060, 83 N.M. 715, 496 P.2d 1111.
Neither the asserted contract for removal of a structure from plaintiff's land nor the removal process itself involves building or improving the structures (Subsection D(11)), or building, installations, repairs or alterations on a farm or ranch owned, occupied or operated by plaintiff (Subsection D(12)). Therefore, these exclusions do not exclude the asserted contract of removal from the meaning of "constructing." Fleming v. Phelps-Dodge Corp., 1972-NMCA-060, 83 N.M. 715, 496 P.2d 1111.
Unlicensed manager for contractor was individually exempt from licensing requirements. — Where plaintiff filed an action to cancel a mechanic's lien that defendant, a sole proprietorship owned by defendant, filed to enforce its right to payment for painting, drywall, and stucco work it had performed on homes being built on plaintiff's land, and where plaintiff claimed that defendant's son, the manager of the business who engaged in work that constituted contracting, was an unlicensed contractor who had no right to file or claim any mechanic's lien, the district court did not err in determining that 60-13-2(I) NMSA 1978 and 60-13-3(D)(13) NMSA 1978 operated to exempt defendant's son from classification as a contractor, because profit-based compensation such as that which defendant's son received constitutes wages within the meaning of 60-13-3(D)(13) NMSA 1978's exemption. Defendant's son, therefore, was exempt from the requirement that he be licensed to perform the contracting services that he provided to plaintiff, and therefore was not barred from filing liens or taking legal action to collect compensation for defendant's work and its other employees' work. Kemp v. JJJ Painting, 2026-NMCA-050, cert. denied.
No license required for contract to drill well. — A contract for drilling a well to supply water for agricultural purposes fell within the exceptions to which the former Contractors' License Act of 1939 did not apply. B. & R. Drilling Co. v. Gardner, 1951-NMSC-004, 55 N.M. 118, 227 P.2d 627.
No license requirement for cleaning activity. — Where construction work had been completed without objection and the only dispute centered around the amount of offset defendant should be allowed as costs for cleaning up the work site, the cleanup activity involved did not require a contractor's license according to the definitions of this section. Olivas v. Sibco, Inc., 1975-NMSC-027, 87 N.M. 488, 535 P.2d 1339.
License required in partnership's name. — Contractors' License Law, 67-16-2, 1953 Comp. (now repealed), and the rules and regulations issued pursuant thereto, compelled partnerships to be licensed to hold a license in the partnership name. Crumpacker v. Adams, 1967-NMSC-060, 77 N.M. 633, 426 P.2d 781.
Necessary to establish that license required. — Defendant, seeking to invoke 67-16-14, 1953 Comp. (now repealed), prohibiting an unlicensed contractor from maintaining an action, must establish that plaintiff was in fact required to be licensed. Crumpacker v. Adams, 1967-NMSC-060, 77 N.M. 633, 426 P.2d 781.
Effect of knowledge of other party's lack of license. — Formerly the fact that defendants in an action to establish and foreclose mechanic's lien knew at the time they entered into contract with plaintiff that latter was not duly licensed did not estop them from asserting plaintiff's noncompliance with former licensing statute. Kaiser v. Thomson, 1951-NMSC-037, 55 N.M. 270, 232 P.2d 142.
Standing to attack constitutionality under former law. — Duly licensed contractors operating unmolested under the former act creating the license board (now abolished) were not in position to question constitutionality of the act where no proceeding was pending, contemplated or threatened by the board to revoke their licenses and no other action was contemplated by the board which would affect them adversely. Brockman v. Contractors Licensing Bd., 1944-NMSC-038, 48 N.M. 304, 150 P.2d 125.
Highway contractors are included within definition of term "contractor" as used in the former Contractors' License Law. 1961 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 61-69.
Hourly worker not necessarily exempt. — The fact that a person undertakes to do work for another at an hourly rate does not necessarily by that fact alone exempt him from the definition of "contractor" under former law. 1955 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 55-6332.
Construction for own use on own land not included. — Under former version of this section (67-16-2, 1953 Comp.), a person constructing billboards for his own use on his own land did not need to be licensed as a contractor, as such person did not "undertake" to construct, alter, repair, add to or improve anything within the meaning of that section. "Undertakes" as used in the statutory definition of "contractor," necessarily meant "undertakes with another," and did not include work done by a person alone for his own uses. 1966 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 66-24.
Bowling alley, related fixtures subject to regulation. — Bowling alleys and fixtures related thereto, as in the installation of a bar, are fabricated into a building under a performance contract and for a lump sum and are not considered to be personalty; therefore, the operation in question is subject to regulation under the former act. 1958 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 58-155.
Mere moving of completed structure is not included under laws applied to contractors' licensing. 1953 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 53-5653.
When completion and moving of house included. — In the event a house had been wholly constructed elsewhere and moved to the site, the person so moving and setting the house upon the site was not within the provisions of the Contractors' Licensing Law (now repealed). In the event the prefabrication took place in sections and the house or structure was completed on the site, then the persons completing it, if all the other provisions of the law were applicable were under the former law pertaining to the contractors' licensing board (now abolished). 1953 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 53-5653.
Sale of prefabricated structure not included. — In view of the rule requiring strict interpretation of licensing statutes, a person who sells prefabricated structures is in no way included in the terms and provisions of the former Contractors' Licensing Law, whether he sells the structure delivered on the building site or whether the structure is sold F.O.B. manufacturer's plant. 1953 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 53-5653.
Installation of turbine water well pump. — A person who installs a turbine water well pump need not obtain a contractor's license. 1988 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 88-28.
Prospect and contract miners not subject to act. — Generally speaking, the term "project" is not specifically applicable to prospect or development mining operations, but more recognizable as used in commercial or domestic realty terminology; accordingly, under former law, prospect and contract miners were not subject to this act. 1957 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 57-105.
Agency or political subdivision of state not covered under former law. — Under former 67-16-3, 1953 Comp. of the Contractors' License Law, an agency or political subdivision of the state was not required to have a contractor's license for any classification as set forth in the rules and regulations of that law. That section confined the necessity for securing licenses to "any person, firm, co-partnership, corporation, association or other organization, or any combination thereof." Neither the state, its agencies or political subdivisions were mentioned in this list of business entities. Furthermore, the state could not be included in any of such business entities because the state was a body politic and not an association, society or corporation. Thus, the contractors' license board (now abolished) had no authority to license a water or soil conservation district in New Mexico. 1966 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 66-48.
Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — Who is a "contractor" within statutes requiring the licensing of, or imposing a license tax upon, a "contractor" without specifying the kinds of contractors involved, 19 A.L.R.3d 1407.
53 C.J.S. Licenses § 34.