N.M. R. Civ. P. Metro. Ct. 3-704

As amended through May 8, 2024

Rule 3-704 - Relief from judgment or order

A.Clerical mistakes. Clerical mistakes in judgments, orders or parts of the record and errors therein arising from oversight or omission may be corrected by the court at any time of its own initiative or on the motion of any party and after such notice, if any, as the court orders. During the pendency of an appeal, such mistakes may be so corrected before the appeal is docketed in the district court, and thereafter while the appeal is pending may be so corrected with leave of the district court or the appellate court before which the appeal is pending.

B.Mistakes; inadvertence; excusable neglect; fraud, etc. On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party or his legal representative from a final judgment, order or proceeding for the following reasons:

(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect;

(2) fraud (whether heretofore denominated intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation or other misconduct of an adverse party;

(3) the judgment is void;

(4) the judgment has been satisfied, released or discharged, or a prior judgment upon which it is based has been reversed or otherwise vacated; or

(5) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of a judgment, including failure of a party who was subject to the provisions of Rule 3-201(E) NMRA to comply with Rules 3-201(E)(2) and 3-401(D) NMRA, and to substantially comply with Form 4-226 NMRA.

A motion filed pursuant to Subparagraph (1) or (2) of this paragraph shall be filed not more than one (1) year after the judgment, order or proceeding was entered or taken. A motion under this paragraph does not affect the finality of a judgment or suspend its operation.

An order granting or denying relief from a final judgment under this rule may be appealed to the district court in the same manner as other appeals from final judgments of the metropolitan court are taken.

C.Satisfied judgments. Upon the filing with the court of a motion for an order declaring the judgment to be satisfied and notice to the opposing party, the court may set a hearing to determine if the judgment has been satisfied, released or discharged. The application shall be served upon the judgment creditor in the manner prescribed by Rule 3-202 for service of summons and complaint. A hearing on the application shall be held within a reasonable time after the filing of the application. Notice of the hearing shall be mailed to the parties by the clerk of the court. If the judgment creditor fails to appear at such hearing, a default satisfaction of judgment may be entered upon:

(1) the filing of the return of service or an affidavit that after "diligent search" the judgment creditor could not be located. For purposes of this subparagraph "diligent search" includes, but shall not be limited to an affidavit that:

(a) the judgment creditor no longer has a business or residence at the judgment creditor's last known address as shown in the court file; and

(b) the judgment creditor could not be located through a search of telephone and city directories in each county where the judgment creditor was known to have resided or maintained a place of business in this state; and

(2) proof of payment of the full amount of such judgment with interest thereon to date of payment, plus post-judgment costs incurred by the judgment creditor which can be determined from the court record or, if the judgment, including any interest and costs has not been paid in full, payment into the court registry of the balance owed in accordance with Section 39-1-6.2 NMSA 1978 plus any costs of court for receiving into and paying the money out of the registry of the court.

N.M. R. Civ. P. Metro. Ct. 3-704

As amended, effective 7/1/1990;1/1/1997; as amended by Supreme Court Order 10 No. 20-8300-005, effective for all cases filed on or after 12/31/2020.

Committee commentary. - In 2016, the New Mexico Supreme Court approved amendments to Rules 1-009, 1-017, 1-055, and 1-060 NMRA, and created a new civil complaint form for consumer debt claims, Form 4-226 NMRA, for use in the district courts.

Paragraph B of this rule was amended in 2020 to provide additional protections to consumers in consumer debt collection cases. See Rule 3-201 NMRA, Committee commentary. In addition, Rules 2-201, 2-401, 2-702, 2-703, 3-201, 3-401, and 3-702 NMRA, as well as Form 4-226 NMRA, were amended in 2020 to align the metropolitan and magistrate court rules for consumer debt claims with the district court rules.

Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co. v. Johnston, 2016-NMSC-013, ¶ 34, 369 P.3d 1046, provides that a judgment "is not voidable under Rule 1-060(B) [NMRA] due to a lack of prudential standing." (Emphasis added). Rule 1-060(B)(4) NMRA is equivalent to Rule 3-704(B)(3) NMRA in providing grounds for relief of a void judgment. The 2020 amendment to Rule 3-704 NMRA (adding Subparagraph (B)(5)) provides a ground for relief in consumer debt litigation separate from the relief from voidable judgments under Rule 3 - 704(B)(3) NMRA.

Rule 3-704(B)(5) NMRA now provides that noncompliance with the requirements of Rule 3-201(E)(2) NMRA or Rule 3-401(D) NMRA, or the failure to substantially comply with Form 4-226 NMRA, can provide a basis for granting relief from a judgment entered in a case controlled by Rule 3-201(E) NMRA. The addition of this language provides a ground for relief, but does not compel the metropolitan court to grant relief in every case in which the movant shows noncompliance with these consumer debt provisions. The movant must also demonstrate that it has a meritorious defense. See Rodriguez v. Conant, 1987-NMSC-040, ¶ 18, 105 N.M. 746, 737 P.2d 527. When the movant meets this requirement, the court may exercise discretion to determine whether intervening equities or other considerations outweigh the desire "that the ultimate result will address the true merits and substantial justice will be done." Phelps Dodge Corp. v. Guerra, 1978-NMSC-053, ¶¶ 15, 20, 21, 92 N.M. 47, 582 P.2d 819.

In contrast, a motion to void the judgment under Rule 3-704(B)(3) NMRA does not permit the trial court to exercise discretion to deny the motion, Classen v. Classen, 1995-NMCA-022, ¶¶ 10, 13, 119 N.M. 582, 893 P.2d 478, and does not require proof of a meritorious defense. Peralta v. Heights Med. Ctr., Inc., 485 U.S. 80, 86-87 (1988).

[As amended by Supreme Court Order No. 20-8300-005, effective for all cases filed on or after December 31, 2020.]

ANNOTATIONS The 1997 amendment, effective January 1, 1997, substituted "judgment creditor" for "defendant" near the end of Subparagraph C(1)(b). The 1990 amendment, effective for cases filed in the metropolitan courts on or after July 1, 1990, in Subsection B substituted the present second sentence for the former second sentence, which read "The motion shall be made within a reasonable time, and for reasons (1) and (2) not more than one (1) year after the judgment, order or proceeding was entered or taken.", and added the last paragraph; and added Paragraph C.