N.M. Stat. § 14-9-3 (2026)

    No deed, mortgage or other instrument in writing not recorded in accordance with
Section 14-9-1 NMSA 1978 shall affect the title or rights to, in any real estate, of any
purchaser, mortgagee in good faith or judgment lien creditor, without knowledge of the
existence of such unrecorded instruments. Possession alone based on an unrecorded
executory real estate contract shall not be construed against any subsequent
purchaser, mortgagee in good faith or judgment lien creditor either to impute knowledge
of or to impose the duty to inquire about the possession or the provisions of the
instruments.

History: Laws 1886-1887, ch. 10, § 3; C.L. 1897, § 3955; Code 1915, § 4788; Laws
1923, ch. 11, § 1; C.S. 1929, § 118-110; 1941 Comp., § 13-203; 1953 Comp., § 71-2-3;
Laws 1990, ch. 72, § 1.

                                     ANNOTATIONS

The 1990 amendment, effective May 16, 1990, substituted "Section 14-9-1 NMSA
1978" for "Section 4786" in the first sentence and added the second sentence.

                          I.     GENERAL CONSIDERATION.

Applicability. — This section is applicable only in situations where two deeds purport to
convey the same property. Grammer v. New Mexico Credit Corp., 1957-NMSC-018, 62
N.M. 243, 308 P.2d 573.

This section applies to tax deeds. Cano v. Lovato, 1986-NMCA-043, 105 N.M. 522,
734 P.2d 762.

Inapplicability to tax liens. — A tax lien is not within the class of written instruments
governed by this section. Cano v. Lovato, 1986-NMCA-043, 105 N.M. 522, 734 P.2d
762.

Construed in pari materia. — Section 14-9-2 NMSA 1978 must be considered with
this section with which it is in pari materia. Romero v. Sanchez, 1971-NMSC-129, 83
N.M. 358, 492 P.2d 140.

Applicability to revocable trusts. — The protection afforded by the New Mexico
recording acts is inapplicable to a revocable trust that does not affect the title to the
original property. Withers v. Board of Cnty. Comm'rs, 1981-NMCA-032, 96 N.M. 71, 628
P.2d 316.

Word "purchaser" has two well defined meanings, the common and popular meaning
being that he is one who obtains title to real estate in consideration of the payment of
money or its equivalent, and the other being technical and including all persons who
acquire real estate otherwise than by descent, which includes acquisition by devise, and
the word is used in the recording statute in its popular sense. Arias v. Springer, 1938-
NMSC-025, 42 N.M. 350, 78 P.2d 153; Withers v. Board of Cnty. Comm'rs, 96 N.M. 71,
628 P.2d 316.

Intermittent or occasional use of land is insufficient to operate as notice to a
purchaser. Ortiz v. Jacquez, 1966-NMSC-243, 77 N.M. 155, 420 P.2d 305.

Any conflict between 40-3-13 NMSA 1978, requiring joinder of spouses, and this
section should be resolved in favor of this section which protects the rights of innocent
purchasers for value without notice of unrecorded instruments. Jeffers v. Martinez,
1979-NMSC-083, 93 N.M. 508, 601 P.2d 1204, appeal after remand, 1982-NMSC-116,
99 N.M. 351, 658 P.2d 426.

Section does not require deeds to be acknowledged. Garcia v. Leal, 1924-NMSC-
078, 30 N.M. 249, 231 P. 631.

Acknowledgment is not essential to validity of deed of conveyance as between its
parties. Kitchen v. Canavan, 1932-NMSC-037, 36 N.M. 273, 13 P.2d 877.

Verbal consent to assignment. — A party's verbal consent to an assignment of an
interest in a real estate contract is not a substitute for perfection of that interest by
recording. Mazer v. Jones, 184 B.R. 377 (Bankr. D.N.M. 1995).

Priority of recorded judgment lien. — Although it has been held that the 1923
amendment of this section did not affect the priority of an unrecorded mortgage over a
recorded judgment lien, yet as between them taking effect simultaneously, since the law
of 1923 took effect, the recorded judgment lien has priority. Fulghum v. Madrid, 1927-
NMSC-064, 33 N.M. 303, 265 P. 454.

Effect of failure to record. — A deed of land, though not recorded, is good between
grantor and grantee, and divests the title of the former, so that it does not pass to a
subsequent grantee, or mortgagee, who takes only the estate which belongs to the
grantor at the time. Ames v. Robert, 1913-NMSC-021, 17 N.M. 609, 131 P. 994.

Requirement tax deeds to be recorded not applicable. — Where a deed issued by
state tax commission to an individual conveyed land which had previously been
conveyed by the county treasurer to the state in pursuance of a tax sale to the state, the
deed from the tax commission is not a tax deed and the requirement that tax deeds
must be recorded within a year after their issuance is not applicable thereto. Hargrove v.
Lucas, 1952-NMSC-043, 56 N.M. 323, 243 P.2d 623.

                             II.    PERSONS PROTECTED.

Effect of correction deeds referencing easement extinguishment agreement. —
Where a five-acre tract was burdened by an access easement that benefitted an
adjoining twenty-two acre tract; the original owner of both tracts sold the five-acre tract
to defendants and on March 5, 2001, the original owner executed an extinguishment
agreement terminating the easement across the five-acre tract; the extinguishment
agreement provided that it would be effective upon recordation in the county records;
two days later, on March 7, defendants recorded the deed to the five-acre tract which
described the land as burdened by the easement; the original owner sold the twenty-two
acre tract to a third party; on April 25, the third party recorded its deed; on April 30,
defendants recorded the extinguishment agreement; the third party was a bona fide
purchaser without notice of the extinguishment agreement; two years later, the third
party sold the twenty-two acre tract to plaintiff; and at plaintiff’s insistence, corrected
deeds between the original owner and the third party, and the third party and plaintiff
incorporated by reference the extinguishment agreement, the extinguishment
agreement was valid when recorded and by correcting its deeds to incorporate the
extinguishment agreement, plaintiff forfeited its protection under the recording statutes
and its right to the easement across the five-acre tract. Amethyst Land Co., Inc. v.
Terhune, 2014-NMSC-015, rev'g 2013-NMCA-059, 304 P.3d 434.

Failure to promptly record extinguishment of easement. — Where access to
plaintiff’s 22 acre tract was provided by a forty foot roadway easement on an adjoining
five acre tract that was owned by defendants; on February 16, 2001, the common owner
of both tracts signed a warranty deed conveying the five acre tract to defendants,
expressly subject to the forty foot easement, on March 5, 2001, the common owner
signed an extinguishment agreement to terminate the forty foot easement; on March 7,
2001, defendants’ warranty deed was recorded; on March 20, 2011, the common owner
gave a special warranty deed to the 22 acre tract to plaintiff’s predecessor in title which
did not mention the forty foot easement or the extinguishment agreement; on April 12,
2001, defendants signed the extinguishment agreement; on April 25, 2001, plaintiff’s
predecessor recorded the special warranty deed to the 22 acre tract; on April 30, 2001,
defendants recorded the extinguishment agreement; two years later, plaintiff acquired
the 22 acre tract by quitclaim deed which plaintiff recorded on April 30, 2003; and
plaintiff’s predecessor did not have actual or inquiry notice of the extinguishment
agreement when the predecessor acquired the 22 acre tract, plaintiff’s predecessor was
a bona fide purchaser without notice of the extinguishment agreement and acquired title
to the 22 acre tract free of the extinguishment agreement, the 22 acre tract continued to
be benefitted by the forty foot easement, plaintiff acquired the property interests and
rights of its predecessor, including the forty foot easement, and the extinguishment
agreement was ineffective against plaintiff. Amethyst Land Co., Inc. v. Terhune, 2013-
NMCA-059, 304 P.3d 434, rev’d, 2014-NMSC-015.

Correction deeds referencing an ineffective easement extinguishment agreement
did not revive the easement. — Where access to plaintiff’s 22 acre tract was provided
by a forty foot roadway easement on an adjoining five acre tract that was owned by
defendants; when defendants acquired the five acre tract, the common owner of both
tracts signed an extinguishment agreement to terminate the forty foot easement; before
the extinguishment agreement was recorded, the common owner sold the 22 acre tract
to plaintiff’s predecessor in title who was unaware of the extinguishment agreement and
who later sold the 22 acre tract to plaintiff; plaintiff’s predecessor and plaintiff acquired
title to the 22 acre tract free of the extinguishment agreement; and after plaintiff
acquired the 22 acre tract, plaintiff’s attorney searched the record and prepared
correction deeds from the common owner to plaintiff’s predecessor and from plaintiff’s
predecessor to plaintiff which expressly included the forty foot easement and stated that
the easement was partially vacated by the extinguishment agreement, the correction
deeds did not revive the extinguishment agreement or otherwise terminate the forty foot
easement. Amethyst Land Co., Inc. v. Terhune, 2013-NMCA-059, 304 P.3d 434, rev’d,
2014-NMSC-015.

Purchases and mortgages. — Prior to the amendment of 1923, the recording laws
were for the protection of purchasers and mortgagees only. Wells v. Dice, 1929-NMSC-
008, 33 N.M. 647, 275 P. 90.

Attachment creditors. — An unrecorded conveyance protected only subsequent
purchasers and mortgagees in good faith and without notice, but did not protect
attachment creditors. Chetham-Strode v. Blake, 1914-NMSC-067, 19 N.M. 335, 142 P.
1130.

Investors and judgment creditors. — The object of the recording statute is to prevent
injustice by protecting those who, without knowledge of infirmities in the title, invest
money in property or mortgage loans and those who have acquired judgment liens
without such knowledge. Arias v. Springer, 1938-NMSC-025, 42 N.M. 350, 78 P.2d 153.

Purchaser, mortgagee, or judgment creditor. — In order to avail himself of the
protection of this section, a party must be a purchaser, mortgagee in good faith, or a
judgment lien creditor of the land in question. Withers v. Board of Cnty. Comm'rs, 1981-
NMCA-032, 96 N.M. 71, 628 P.2d 316.

Gift recipients. — Because persons who have not given consideration in exchange for
the title to property cannot invoke the recording statute, summary judgment in an action
involving defendant's claim of title to property pursuant to the recording statute was in
error where plaintiff raised the factual issue of whether the defendant acquired the
property by gift. Valencia v. Lundgren, 2000-NMCA-045, 129 N.M. 57, 1 P.3d 975.

Test whether one had implied knowledge is whether he exercised the ordinary care
of a purchaser of a federal oil and gas lease. O'Kane v. Walker, 561 F.2d 207 (10th Cir.
1977).

Oil and gas lease. — Purchaser exercised the ordinary care expected of a purchaser
of a federal oil and gas lease where careful investigation of the records showed record
title in the offeror, the price was low, but not unreasonably so in view of the short
remaining lease term and the highly speculative nature of the investment, and
purchaser was a bona fide purchaser, without actual or implied knowledge of any facts
which would have put him on notice of an unrecorded conveyance. O'Kane v. Walker,
561 F.2d 207 (10th Cir. 1977).
Equitable principles require that innocent purchaser should prevail over one who
negligently fails to record a deed upon which he seeks to rely. Jeffers v. Martinez, 1979-
NMSC-083, 93 N.M. 508, 601 P.2d 1204, appeal after remand, 1982-NMSC-116, 99
N.M. 351, 658 P.2d 426.

Equitable principles require that innocent purchaser should prevail over one who
negligently fails to record a deed upon which he seeks to rely. Jeffers v. Martinez, 1979-
NMSC-083, 93 N.M. 508, 601 P.2d 1204, appeal after remand, 1982-NMSC-116, 99
N.M. 351, 658 P.2d 426.

Unrecorded chattel mortgage. — A chattel mortgage is good between the parties and
against purchasers with notice although unrecorded. Kitchen v. Schuster, 1907-NMSC-
021, 14 N.M. 164, 89 P. 261.

Unrecorded plat. — Where the developer submitted a preliminary plat that described a
ten-acre parcel as open space; the municipality instructed the developer to designate
the parcel as a "drainage easement" as a surrogate term for "open space" and the
municipality relied on the developer’s representation that the parcel would be set aside
as open space in perpetuity; the preliminary plat was not recorded; the final recorded
plat designated the parcel as a drainage easement; and the developer sold the parcel to
a buyer who had no knowledge of the unrecorded interest of the municipality, the
recorded plat unambiguously granted the municipality an easement for the specific
purpose of drainage thereby extinguishing any unrecorded interests and relieving the
subsequent buyer, who was a good faith purchaser for value, from the duty to diligently
investigate whether the municipality had other adverse claims to the property title. City
of Rio Rancho v. Amrep Sw., Inc., 2011-NMSC-037, 260 P.3d 414, aff'g in part, rev'g in
part 2010-NMCA-075, 148 N.M. 542, 238 P.3d 911.

Quiet title suit. — In suit to quiet title, where plaintiff and defendant both derive their
titles from the same grantor, and defendant purchased in good faith, for value and had
no knowledge of the outstanding unrecorded deed of his grantor to plaintiff's grantor,
defendant had the better title, notwithstanding the fact that he took a quitclaim deed.
Mabie-Lowrey Hdwe. Co. v. Ross, 1920-NMSC-026, 26 N.M. 51, 189 P. 42.

Oral agreement. — If one is a bona fide purchaser for value without notice of another's
claimed interest, then the oral agreement would be of no effect as to him even if it be
treated as an enforceable agreement as between the other person and the vendor. Ortiz
v. Jacquez, 1966-NMSC-243, 77 N.M. 155, 420 P.2d 305.

                              III.   PARTICULAR CASES.

Deeds. — Where land conveyed by unrecorded deed was within larger tract
subsequently conveyed by grantor to another and was not specifically excepted from
operation of later deed, both deeds purported to convey same land and this section was
applicable, and later grantee did not have constructive notice of unrecorded deed.
Grammer v. New Mexico Credit Corp., 1957-NMSC-018, 62 N.M. 243, 308 P.2d 573.
Residuary legatee. — Where grantor delivered deed to third party with instructions to
retain the same in her possession until grantor died, and then to deliver it to grantee,
and imposed no conditions, retained no right to recall the deed and exercised no control
over it thereafter, grantor's residuary legatee and devisee was not a purchaser within
meaning of recording statute, and could not claim title as against the deed, though
unrecorded. Arias v. Springer, 1938-NMSC-025, 42 N.M. 350, 78 P.2d 153.

Constructive notice. — A lien on real estate resulting from a recorded transcript of
judgment does not have priority over the interest of purchasers under an earlier
executed but unrecorded contract, where the lienholder has constructive notice of the
purchasers' interest through the purchasers' actual possession of the property. Citizens
Bank v. Hodges, 1988-NMCA-001, 107 N.M. 329, 757 P.2d 799, cert. denied, 107 N.M.
74, 752 P.2d 789.

Partnership certificate as constructive notice. — In the absence of a recorded deed
at the time plaintiff’s judgment lien attached, defendant’s partnership's certificate could
not function as constructive notice to plaintiff of plaintiff’s conveyance of the realty at
issue to a partnership he formed with another party, since the partnership certificate at
issue was filed with records other than those relating to property transfers, and
defendant’s name was not associated with the partnership in the index to those records.
F & S Co. v. Gentry, 1985-NMSC-065, 103 N.M. 54, 702 P.2d 999.

Reversionary interest. — Where a mortgagor entered into an executory contract to sell
his land nearly six years prior to his execution of the mortgage, so that the only interest
he still owned in such real estate involved a possibility of a reverter to him in the event
of a default in payment of the real estate contract, the mortgagee's bank had actual
notice of the facts and did not assign to the bank any interest in the unpaid balance of
the real estate contract, the trial court properly concluded, as a matter of law, that the
only lien the bank acquired was on the possible reversionary interest, and accordingly,
since the mortgage did not "attach to" the real property, the trial court correctly
concluded that the bank was not entitled to foreclose the mortgage. First Nat'l Bank v.
Luce, 1974-NMSC-098, 87 N.M. 94, 529 P.2d 760.

Reformation of deed not to affect rights of innocent purchaser. — Because there
was no evidence that a judgment lienholder had any notice of a claimed mistake in a
deed until she attempted to execute her judgment, the court was correct in ruling that
any reformation of the deed was not effective against her rights. Ruybalid v. Segura,
1988-NMCA-084, 107 N.M. 660, 763 P.2d 369.

Acknowledgment of assignment on back of executory contract for sale of real
estate, to which the assignment refers for particular description, is not an
acknowledgment of the contract, and although the contract was copied into the record,
that did not make it of record, nor constructive notice to a subsequent purchaser having
no actual knowledge of it. McBee v. O'Connell, 1911-NMSC-049, 16 N.M. 469, 120 P.
734, appeal after remand, 1914-NMSC-088, 19 N.M. 565, 145 P. 123.
Innocent purchaser for value. — Plaintiff was an innocent purchaser for value, under
14-9-1 to 14-9-3 NMSA 1978, of oil and gas lease interests since the records at the
federal land office did not constitute constructive notice or prior assignment which
plaintiff had no knowledge of, and the assignment was not recorded in the appropriate
county clerk's office, as required by 70-1-1 and 70-1-2 NMSA 1978. Bolack v.
Underwood, 340 F.2d 816 (10th Cir. 1965).

Rights of a judgment lien creditor were held fixed by condition of affairs as they
existed at time of inception of his lien. They were not affected by a subsequent
conveyance which debtor could not have been coerced by courts to make. Sylvanus v.
Pruett, 1932-NMSC-002, 36 N.M. 112, 9 P.2d 142.

Judgment lien was held superior to alleged mortgage lien claimed under altered
warranty deed by party whose name had been inserted as grantee therein. Scheer v.
Stolz, 1937-NMSC-070, 41 N.M. 585, 72 P.2d 606.

Prescriptive title cannot be obtained by adverse user based on a written, but
unrecorded, grant. Southern Union Gas Co. v. Cantrell, 1952-NMSC-024, 56 N.M. 184,
241 P.2d 1209.

Gas easement. — Where gas company acquired easement for right-of-way by written
instrument which was not recorded and the easement was not visible or open, a third-
party purchaser, without knowledge of the easement, was not bound thereby, since gas
company did not have prescriptive easement in the land. Southern Union Gas Co. v.
Cantrell, 1952-NMSC-024, 56 N.M. 184, 241 P.2d 1209.

Law reviews. — For article, "Attachment in New Mexico - Part II," see 2 Nat.
Resources J. 75 (1962).

For 1986-88 survey of New Mexico law of real property, 19 N.M.L. Rev. 751 (1990).

For article, "Legislature Tampers With Recording Act," see 20 N.M.L. Rev. 235 (1990).

For annual survey of New Mexico Law of Property, see 20 N.M.L. Rev. 373 (1990).

Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — 66 Am. Jur. 2d Records and Recording
Laws §§ 156 to 193.

Rights as between purchaser of timber and subsequent vendee of land, 18 A.L.R.2d
1150.

Relative rights to real property as between purchasers from or through decedent's heirs
and devisees under will subsequently sought to be established, 22 A.L.R.2d 1107.

Relative rights in real property as between purchasers from or through decedent's heirs
or devisees and unknown surviving spouse, 39 A.L.R.2d 1082.
14-9-4. Filing for record; effect; reception book.
    The time of the recording of an instrument shall be the time of its deposit in the office
of the county clerk and his entry thereof in the reception book as herein provided. It
shall be the duty of every county clerk immediately on the receipt for record of any
deed, mortgage or other writing affecting the title to real estate, to enter the same by the
name of the grantor, mortgagor or other persons [person] whose title is affected
thereby, in a proper book, arranged in alphabetical or numerical order, to be known as
the reception book, together with the date, hour and minute of such record. Any county
clerk failing to make such entry immediately, shall be punished by a fine of one hundred
dollars [($100)], and shall also be liable for damages to any person injured by such
neglect, to the extent of such injury.

History: Laws 1886-1887, ch. 10, § 4; C.L. 1897, § 3956; Laws 1899, ch. 22, § 1; 1913,
ch. 84, § 1; Code 1915, § 4789; C.S. 1929, § 118-111; Laws 1939, ch. 179, § 3; 1941
Comp., § 13-204; 1953 Comp., § 71-2-4.

                                     ANNOTATIONS

Bracketed material. — The bracketed material was inserted by the compiler and it is
not part of the law.

Compiler's notes. — The 1915 Code compilers substituted "county clerk" for "probate
clerk."