N.M. R. Civ. P. Dist. Ct. 1-001
N.M. R. Civ. P. Dist. Ct. 1-001
Committee commentary. - The New Mexico Constitution provides that district courts have only such "jurisdiction of special cases and proceeding as may be conferred by law." N.M. Const. Art VI, Sec. 13. As a matter of practice, but not constitutional compulsion, the Supreme Court has deferred to legislative directives concerning procedural matters in special proceedings even if they do not affect the Court's jurisdiction. However, the Supreme Court sometimes adopts procedure rules that are explicitly applicable to statutory procedures for special cases and proceedings. When this occurs, the explicit contrary rule supersedes the statutory procedures. See Ammerman v. Hubbard Broadcasting Inc., 89 N.M. 307, 551 P.2d 1354 (1976) (Procedural statutes do not apply if contradicted by a rule of procedure promulgated by the Supreme Court); NMSA Sec. 38-1-2 ("Practice statutes may be modified or suspended by rules"); NMRA Rule 1-091 ("Adopting Procedural Statutes").
Rule 1-004(A)(1) (service of summons), Rule 1-087 (Contest of Election or Nomination) and Rules 1-071.1 to 1-071.5 (Stream Adjudications) are examples of procedural rules adopted by the New Mexico Supreme Court that supersede contrary statutory provisions dealing with special statutory cases or proceedings.
Special Cases, Proceedings Defined
Special cases and proceedings are "statutory proceedings to enforce rights and remedies created by statute and which were unknown at common law." In re Forest, 45 N.M. 204. 207, 113 P.2d 582, 583 (1941); VanderVossen v. City of Espanola, 130 N.M. 287, 24 P.3d 319, Par. 15 (Ct. App. 2001).
Special Proceedings
Special proceedings include: Election Contests [Montoya v. McManus, 68 N.M. 381, 384, 362 P.2d 771, 773 (1961)]; Probate Proceedings [In re Estate of Harrington, 129 N.M. 266, 5 P.3d 1070, 2000 -NMCA- 058, Par. 14]; Zoning Proceedings [VanderVossen v. City of Española, 130 N.M. 287, 24 P.3d 319, 2001-NMCA-016, Par. 15]; Workers' Compensation Proceedings [Holman v. Oriental Refinery, 75 N.M. 52, 54, 400 P.2d 471, 473 (1965)]; Arbitration Proceedings [Medina v. Foundation Reserve Ins. Co., 123 N.M. 380, 940 P.2d 1175, Par. 10 (N.M. 1997)]; Declaratory Judgment Proceedings [Smith v. City of Santa Fe, 142 N.M. 786, 171 P.3d 300, 2007-NMSC-055, Par. 13]; Adoption Proceedings [In re Doe, 101 N.M. 34, 37, 677 P.2d 1070, 1073 (Ct. App. 1984)]; Garnishment Proceedings [Postal Finance Co. v. Sisneros, 84 N.M. 724, 725, 527 P.2d 785, 786 (1973)]; Stream Adjudications [Rule 1-071.2 NMRA]; Certain Tax Proceedings [In re Sevilleta de la Joya Grant, 41 N.M. 305, 68 P.2d 160 (1937) (tax sales); In re Blatt, 41 N.M. 269, 67 P.2d 293 (1937) (suit to recover overpayment of taxes); State v. Rosenwald Bros. Co., 23 N.M. 578, 170 P. 42 (1918) (challenge to tax evaluation)]; and Condemnation Proceedings [State v. Rosenwald Bros. Co., 23 N.M. 578, 170 P. 42 (1918)].
Summary Proceedings
Summary proceedings include direct Contempt, State v. Ngo, 130 N.M. 515, 520, 27 P.3d 1002, 1007 (Ct. App. 2001), and Proceedings to Enforce or Quash Subpoenas, Wilson Corp. v. State ex rel. Udall, 121 N.M. 677, 916 P.2d 1344, 1996-NMCA-049, Par. 13
Probate Proceedings
Though probate proceedings are "Special Proceedings," e.g., In re Estate of Harrington, 2000-NMCA-058, ¶ 15, 129 N.M. 266, 5 P.3d 1070, these rules apply only in district court and do not apply directly to proceedings in probate court. See NMSA 1978, § 34-7-13 (rule-making power of probate judges). Moreover, the publication provisions of Rule 1-004 NMRA apply only to service of "process" which is defined as "the means by which jurisdiction is obtained over a person to compel the person to appear in a judicial proceeding." Rule 1-004(B)(3). Thus, the Rule 1-004 requirements for, and restrictions on, service by publication apply only to any aspects of probate practice in district court that require service of process as defined in Rule 1-001(B)(3) NMRA. For a discussion of the constitutional limits on the use of publication as a method for giving notice generally in probate proceedings, see Tulsa Collection Services, Inc. v. Pope, 485 U.S. 478 (1988).
[Adopted by Supreme Court Order No. 11-8300-050, effective for cases filed on or after February 6, 2012.]
ANNOTATIONS The 2011 amendment, approved by Supreme Court Order No. 11-8300-050, effective for cases filed on or after February 6, 2012, provided that the Rules of Civil Procedure do not apply to special statutory or summary proceedings where the rules conflict with statutory provisions governing such proceedings unless the rules explicitly provide otherwise; and in Paragraph A, in the first sentence, after "Rules of Evidence", deleted "or existing rules applicable to special statutory or summary proceedings" and added the second sentence. The 2007 amendment, approved by Supreme Court Order 07-8300-41, effective February 25, 2008, provided that Rule 1-001 NMRA shall be subject to the provisions of Rule 23-114 NMRA, the rule governing free process for civil cases. The 2005 amendment, effective March 1, 2005, of this rule inserted a Paragraph number "A." before the first paragraph of the rule and added Paragraphs B, C and D. The 1995 amendment, effective January 1, 1995, added the last sentence.
For district court process under witness of district judge, see Section 34-6-27 NMSA 1978. For actions in metropolitan courts, see Section 34-8A-6 NMSA 1978. For applicability of these rules to proceedings for removal of district attorney, see Section 36-1-15 NMSA 1978. Compiler's notes. - Prior to the enactment of present Section 38-1-1 NMSA 1978 by Laws 1933, ch. 84, §1, the legislature retained the power to enact, amend, and repeal rules of court in New Mexico. Rule 1-001 NMRA is a rule of construction and applies only when the rules are not clear and require construction. H-B-S Partnership v. Aircoa Hospitality Services, Inc., 2008-NMCA-013, 143 N.M. 404, 176 P.3d 1136. Constitution vests supreme court with control over inferior courts. - The power of the supreme court to promulgate rules regulating pleading, practice and procedure for the district courts is a power vested therein by the constitution, which grants the court superintending control over all inferior courts, and in the absence of the clearest language to the contrary in the constitution, the powers essential to the functioning of the courts are to be taken as committed solely to the supreme court to avoid a confusion in the methods of procedure and to provide uniform rules of pleading and practice. Ammerman v. Hubbard Broadcasting, Inc., 1976-NMSC-031, 89 N.M. 307, 551 P.2d 1354, cert. denied, 436 U.S. 906, 98 S. Ct. 2237, 56 L. Ed. 2d 404 (1978). Rules in interest of administration of justice. - These rules are in the interest of the administration of justice and transcend in importance mere inconvenience to a party litigant. Salitan v. Carrillo, 1961-NMSC-176, 69 N.M. 476, 368 P.2d 149. Principal objective of rules is to resolve delays due to reliance on technicalities and to streamline generally and simplify procedure so that merits of the case may be decided without expensive preparation for trial on the merits which may not even be necessary. Benson v. Export Equip. Corp., 1945 -NMSC-044, 49 N.M. 356, 164 P.2d 380. Merits of case should prevail over procedural technicalities. - The general policy of the Rules of Civil Procedure requires that an adjudication on the merits rather than technicalities of procedure and form shall determine the rights of litigants. Las Luminarias of N.M. Council of Blind v. Isengard, 1978-NMCA-117, 92 N.M. 297, 587 P.2d 444. Simplification of litigation procedures another objective of rules. - One of the principal purposes of these rules is to simplify litigation procedures and thus avoid technical roadblocks to a "speedy determination of litigation upon its merits" if trial is necessary. Maxey v. Quintana, 1972-NMCA-069, 84 N.M. 38, 499 P.2d 356, cert. denied, 84 N.M. 37, 499 P.2d 355. These rules, many of which were taken from the federal rules, were designed to simplify judicial procedure and to promote the speedy determination of litigation on its merits. Prager v. Prager, 1969-NMSC-149, 80 N.M. 773, 461 P.2d 906. Functions of pleadings same as under federal rules. - These rules are derived from the federal rules and in all respects pertinent hereto are identical with the federal rules; the functions of the pleadings in New Mexico are the same as under the federal system, the pleadings are not determinative of the issues, and recovery may be had on grounds not asserted in the complaint. Harbin v. Assurance Co. of Am., 308 F.2d 748 (10th Cir. 1962). Special statutory proceedings are not governed by these rules where inconsistent therewith. Trujillo v. Trujillo, 1948-NMSC-040, 52 N.M. 258, 197 P.2d 421. Specifically excepted where existing rules are inconsistent. - Special statutory proceedings where existing rules are inconsistent are specifically excepted from the operation of these rules. Holman v. Oriental Refinery, 1965-NMSC-029, 75 N.M. 52, 400 P.2d 471. Special statutory proceedings are excluded from their operation where existing rules of procedure applicable thereto are inconsistent with such general rules. Montoya v. McManus, 1961-NMSC-060, 68 N.M. 381, 362 P.2d 771. Action of replevin, statutory provision. - The action of replevin is a statutory proceeding designed to take the place of the common-law actions of replevin and detinue, and a writ of replevin in an action of replevin accomplishes the same function in process as does a summons such as provided for in Rule 4(b) (now Rule 1-004 NMRA) in an ordinary civil action. Citizens Bank v. Robinson Bros. Wrecking, 1966-NMSC-114, 76 N.M. 408, 415 P.2d 538. Right to jury trial in eminent domain proceedings governed by civil rules. - The right to trial by jury and the waiver thereof in eminent domain proceedings shall be determined in the manner provided for in ordinary civil cases, cases governed by the Rules of Civil Procedure. El Paso Elec. v. Real Estate Mart, Inc., 1982-NMCA-101, 98 N.M. 490, 650 P.2d 12. There is no material difference in effect of rule and 42-2-18 NMSA 1978. Both provide that these rules shall apply to eminent domain proceedings except where there are inconsistent rules or statutory provisions. State ex rel. State Hwy. Comm'n v. Burks, 1968-NMSC-121, 79 N.M. 373, 443 P.2d 866. Rules of procedure are governed by law of forum. Satterwhite v. Stolz, 1968-NMCA-039, 79 N.M. 320, 442 P.2d 810. Counterclaim or cross-claim may be brought to quiet title in a mortgage foreclosure action. Ortega, Snead, Dixon & Hanna v. Gennitti, 1979-NMSC-056, 93 N.M. 135, 597 P.2d 745. Discovery provisions given liberal interpretation. - The New Mexico Rules of Civil Procedure, like the federal rules after which they are patterned, are designed to enable parties to easily discover all of the relevant facts and therefore the discovery provisions should be given as liberal an interpretation as possible in order to effectuate this design. Carter v. Burn Constr. Co. 1973 -NMCA-156, 85 N.M. 27, 508 P.2d 1324, cert. denied, 85 N.M. 5, 508 P.2d 1302. Provisions relating to jury trials applicable to workmen's compensation. - There is nothing inconsistent in applying the general rules covering jury trials to workmen's compensation cases. Bryant v. H.B. Lynn Drilling Corp., 1959-NMSC-001, 65 N.M. 177, 334 P.2d 707. Venue in workmen's compensation cases. - Since the Workers' Compensation Act (Chapter 52, Article 1 NMSA 1978) is complete in itself, its provisions have not been modified with respect to the pleadings by the rules of procedure promulgated by the supreme court. Guthrie v. Threlkeld Co., 1948-NMSC-017, 52 N.M. 93, 192 P.2d 307. Provisions regarding venue in general civil actions have no application to venue in workmen's compensation cases. State ex rel. Cardenas v. Swope, 1954-NMSC-028, 58 N.M. 296, 270 P.2d 708. Action under conversion statute, suit civil in nature. - Although the Uniform Commercial Code, 55-9-505 NMSA 1978, permits recovery in conversion, the action is nevertheless a suit of a civil nature, and the effect upon litigants of these rules is not avoided. Charley v. Rico Motor Co., 1971-NMCA-004, 82 N.M. 290, 480 P.2d 404. Election contests are excluded from operation of these rules. Montoya v. McManus, 1961-NMSC-060, 68 N.M. 381, 362 P.2d 771; Trujillo v. Trujillo, 1948-NMSC-040, 52 N.M. 258, 197 P.2d 421. Administrative hearings not strictly bound by rules. - Administrative hearings, although patterned after judicial proceedings, are not strictly bound by these rules, and as such the burden of the state corporation commission (now public regulation commission) is to give a full hearing to such participants as are interested and as are qualified to appear. To allow testimony to be taken prior to a public hearing by deposition would be to imperil the right of the public who may wish to intervene subsequent to such deposition. 1953-54 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 53-5646. Law reviews. - For article, "The `New Rules' in New Mexico," see 1 Nat. Resources J. 96 (1961). For article, "Attachment in New Mexico - Part II," see 2 Nat. Resources J. 75 (1962). For survey, "Article VII of the New Probate Code: In Pursuit of Uniform Trust Administration," see 6 N.M.L. Rev. 213 (1976). For article, "Survey of New Mexico Law, 1982-83: Civil Procedure," see 14 N.M.L. Rev. 17 (1984). For comment, "Survey of New Mexico Law: Civil Procedure," see 15 N.M.L. Rev. 157 (1985). For article, "Separation of Powers and the Judicial Rule-Making Power in New Mexico: The Need for Prudential Restraints," see 15 N.M.L. Rev. 407 (1985). Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. - 1 Am. Jur. 2d Actions §1 et seq.; 20 Am. Jur. 2d Courts §25 et seq. Power of court to adopt general rule requiring pretrial conference as distinguished from exercising its discretion in each case separately, 2 A.L.R.2d 1061. Application of civil or criminal procedural rules in federal court proceeding on motion in nature of writ of error coram nobis, 53 A.L.R. Fed. 762. 1A C.J.S. Actions §§ 130, 133; 21 C.J.S. Courts §§ 124 to 134.