N.M. R. Civ. P. Dist. Ct. 1-127
A motion for attorney fees pursuant to Rule 1-054 NMRA shall include an itemization of time expended and an affirmation that the fees claimed are correctly stated and necessary. In awarding fees, the court shall consider relevant factors presented by the parties, including but not limited to:
N.M. R. Civ. P. Dist. Ct. 1-127
ANNOTATIONS Compiler's notes. - Pursuant to a court order dated October 3, 2000, this rule was provisionally approved for twelve months effective November 1, 2000. Subsequently, by a court order dated October 29, 2001, this rule was approved and adopted in its final form, effective November 1, 2001. Primary test for awarding attorney fees. - In determining whether to award attorney fees, a showing of economic disparity, the need of one party, and the ability of the other to pay, has been characterized as the primary test in New Mexico. Martinez v. Martinez, 2017-NMCA-032. Showing of economic disparity. - Where husband and wife dissolved their marriage, the district court did not err in awarding attorney fees where there was a substantial economic disparity between the parties. Martinez v. Martinez, 2017-NMCA-032. Reconsideration of award of attorney fees is appropriate when judgment is reversed. - Where petitioner appealed the district court's denial of her motion to modify a 2010 child support decree, claiming that the district court's ruling resulted from its erroneous determination of the parties' gross monthly incomes and, by extension, child support obligations, reconsideration of the district court's award of attorney fees to respondent on the grounds that he prevailed on the merits was appropriate when reversal and remand for recalculation of the parties' gross monthly incomes was necessary to the extent that the district court improperly deviated from the child support guidelines in calculating the parties' gross monthly incomes and failed to specify the reasons for its decision in deviating from the child support guidelines. Jury v. Jury, 2017-NMCA-036. While case is on appeal, the district court retains jurisdiction to award attorney fees related to enforcement of original judgment. - Where petitioner appealed the district court's denial of her motion to modify a 2010 child support decree, the district court did not err in awarding attorney fees to respondent to enforce the 2010 judgment while the petitioner's appeal was pending, because the district court retains jurisdiction to carry out or enforce its judgment. Jury v. Jury, 2017-NMCA-036. By presenting court with affidavit, mother sufficiently alerted the court's attention to her request for attorney fees and preserved this issue for appeal. Grant v. Cumiford, 2005-NMCA-058, 137 N.M. 485, 112 P.3d 1142. Implementation of 40-4-7(A) NMSA 1978. - Rule 1-054 E NMRA and this rule appear to implement 40-4-7(A) NMSA 1978. Bursum v. Bursum, 2004-NMCA-133, 136 N.M. 584, 102 P.3d 651. Attorney fees for California litigation. - A district court had jurisdiction to consider an award of attorney fees for California litigation involving child custody under 40-4-7 A NMSA 1978 and this rule guidelines. Bursum v. Bursum, 2004-NMCA-133, 136 N.M. 584, 102 P.3d 651. District court is to consider a number of factors. Weddington v. Weddington, 2004-NMCA-034, 135 N.M. 198, 86 P.3d 623. Trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorney fees and costs in petition for continued child support. - Where petitioner filed a motion to establish child support for her nineteen-year-old disabled son, and where respondent argued that the facts of the case did not rise to the level of an incapacitated adult child, despite son's defined disabilities, the trial court did not err in awarding petitioner her attorney fees and costs, where the evidence established that respondent ignored the medical expert's report and findings that son was disabled, declined to settle the case despite encouragement from the court to do so, and caused petitioner to incur additional costs and unnecessary attorney fees. Gonzales v. Shaw, 2018-NMCA-059. Consideration of parties' economic disparity. - It is appropriate for the trial court to consider the parties' access to financial resources when exercising its discretion in awarding attorney fees. Monsanto v. Monsanto, 1995-NMCA-048, 119 N.M. 678, 894 P.2d 1034. In making its award of attorney fees, the trial court properly considered the economic disparity between husband and wife and the husband's access to financial resources through his family. Monsanto v. Monsanto, 1995-NMCA-048, 119 N.M. 678, 894 P.2d 1034. Award of fees to husband. - Where the court was presented with evidence of husband's attorney's attempts to show wife that there was no basis for her motions, and the court was also aware of the total amount of attorney time expended and fees incurred by both husband and wife in the case, these factors support the award of attorney fees to husband. Weddington v. Weddington, 2004-NMCA-034, 135 N.M. 198, 86 P.3d 623. District court did not abuse its discretion in requiring each party to pay his or her own attorney fees. - Where husband and wife dissolved their marriage, and where the district court found that husband earned significantly more than wife, which weighed in favor of wife for an award of attorney fees, that husband prevailed at trial, which weighed in favor of husband for an award of attorney fees, and finally that both parties possessed assets of significant value, the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that each party had the financial ability to pay his or her own attorney fees. Ross v. Negron-Ross, 2017-NMCA-061.