N.M. Stat. » N.M. Stat. / Chapter 35 / Article 12
New Mexico Statutes

N.M. Stat. § 35-12-5 (2026)

Garnishment; controverting garnishee's answer.

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NM-LEGnmonesource.com JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar 
A. If the plaintiff or defendant is not satisfied with the answer of any garnishee, he
may controvert it by stating how he believes it is incorrect, and the issue shall be tried
and determined by the magistrate court.

   B. Any person claiming personal property, money or any chose in action garnished
may intervene in the action, and no judgment shall be rendered against the garnishee
until the intervention is tried and determined by the magistrate court.

History: 1953 Comp., § 36-14-5, enacted by Laws 1968, ch. 62, § 137.

                                     ANNOTATIONS

Repeals. — Laws 1968, ch. 62, § 171, repealed former 36-14-5, 1953 Comp., relating
to appearance bonds when both parties absent or present, effective January 1, 1969.

Effect of nonnegotiability of note provision. — The insertion of a provision specifying
the nonnegotiability of a note cannot circumvent a judgment creditor's right to
garnishment. The nonnegotiability of the note does not preclude the underlying debt due
from the garnishee to the defendant from being collected by garnishment, as under this
section monies due under a chose in action are subject to garnishment. Jemko, Inc. v.
Liaghat, 1987-NMCA-069, 106 N.M. 50, 738 P.2d 922.

Intervention. — A party claiming an interest in the subject matter of the garnishment
should, upon timely application, be permitted to intervene in the garnishment. Jemko,
Inc. v. Liaghat, 1987-NMCA-069, 106 N.M. 50, 738 P.2d 922.

Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — 6 Am. Jur. 2d Attachment and
Garnishment §§ 355, 356.

38 C.J.S. Garnishment § 258 et seq.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 1987–1992 · leading case: Jemko, Inc. v. Liaghat, 738 P.2d 922 (N.M. Ct. App. 1987).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Jemko, Inc. v. Liaghat, 738 P.2d 922 (N.M. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 3× “Under Section 35-12-5, monies due under a chose in action are subject to garnishment.”
Amaya v. Santistevan, 835 P.2d 856 (N.M. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 2× “Amaya filed a “controversion” of the garnishee’s answer, see § 35-12-5(A), in which she argued that “no valid security interest can be obtained, claimed, or held in cash money of a savings account.”
Behles v. Ellermeyer (In Re Lucas), 107 B.R. 332 (Bankr. D.N.M. 1989). “§ 35-12-5. Priority of more than one judgment lien is determined by the order in which the garnishment is served on the garnishee.”
N.M. Stat. § 35-12-5(A): 1 case
Amaya v. Santistevan, 835 P.2d 856 (N.M. Ct. App. 1992). “Amaya filed a “controversion” of the garnishee’s answer, see § 35-12-5(A), in which she argued that “no valid security interest can be obtained, claimed, or held in cash money of a savings account.”
N.M. Stat. § 35-12-5(B): 1 case
Jemko, Inc. v. Liaghat, 738 P.2d 922 (N.M. Ct. App. 1987). “Under Section 35-12-5, monies due under a chose in action are subject to garnishment.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.