served; cancellation of lis pendens notice.]
For the purpose of the preceding section [38-1-14 NMSA 1978], it is considered that
an action is pending from the time of filing such notice; provided, that such notice shall
be of no value, unless it is followed by the service of such citations or process of
citation, or by notice by publication to the defendant, as provided by law, within sixty
days after such filing. And the court in which said action was commenced, may in its
discretion, at any time after the action shall be settled, discontinue or revoke on
application of any person injured, and for good cause shown, and under such notice as
may be directed or approved by the court, order the notice authorized by the preceding
section to be canceled by the county clerk of any county in whose office the same may
have been filed, and such cancellation shall be made by an indorsement to that effect
upon the filed notice which shall refer to the order.
History: Laws 1873-1874, ch. 19, § 2; C.L. 1884, § 1854; C.L. 1897, § 2903; Code
1915, § 4262; C.S. 1929, § 105-1102; 1941 Comp., § 19-310; 1953 Comp., § 21-3-15.
ANNOTATIONS
Bracketed material. — The bracketed material was inserted by the compiler and is not
part of the law.
Compiler's notes. — Although this section speaks of filing a lis pendens notice, the
1959 amendment to 38-1-14 NMSA 1978 substituted references to recording for
references to filing.
Continuation of lis pendens after cancellation. — Regardless of the validity of a
cancellation of a lis pendens established by a suit, the lis pendens continues until
expiration of the time for appeal of the cancellation or until final disposition of the case
by the appellate court. Salas v. Bolagh, 1987-NMCA-138, 106 N.M. 613, 747 P.2d 259.
Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — New or successive notice of lis pendens
in same or new action after loss or cancellation of original notice, 52 A.L.R.2d 1308.
Lis pendens: grounds for cancellation prior to termination of underlying action, absent
claim of delay, 49 A.L.R.4th 242.
Notes of Decisions
Superior Constraction, Inc. v. Linnerooth, 712 P.2d 1378 (N.M. 1986).
· cites it 4× “As the record in this case indicates, once a plaintiff chooses to do so, the notice is not subject to judicial approval or cancellation pending suit, except on equitable grounds.”
Title Guar. & Ins. v. Campbell, 742 P.2d 8 (N.M. Ct. App. 1987).
· cites it 4× “Appellant also contends that because the notice was never cancelled pursuant to NMSA 1978, Section 38-1-15, it continued in effect after the March 13, 1978 judgment.”
Salas v. Bolagh, 747 P.2d 259 (N.M. Ct. App. 1987).
· cites it 2× “In that case, there was undisputed evidence that the trial court’s cancellation of the lis pendens was not in accordance with the requirements of NMSA 1978, Section 38-1-15 (Repl.Pamp.1987). In addition, the continued effectiveness of the notice of lis pendens in Title Guaranty…”
Morton v. Kievit (In Re Vallecito Gas, LLC), 461 B.R. 358 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. 2011).
“N.M. Stat. Ann. § 38-1-15 (West 1978). Accordingly, the Trustee argues that the Burle Lis Pendens that was filed in the real property records in San Juan County prior to any of the ORRI Assignments has the effect making the Defendants “subsequent purchasers” as a matter of law…”
Guinn v. Williams (N.M. Ct. App. 2024).
· cites it 2× “{21} Finally, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to cancel the lis pendens before resolution of this appeal.”
Rabo Agrifinance v. Veigel (N.M. Ct. App. 2020).
· cites it 2× “2012) (per curiam). To the extent that Defendant argues that the notice of lis pendens is of “no value” because it was not served on the defendants in the foreclosure action within sixty days, see NMSA 1978, § 38-1-15 (1873-1874), we emphasize that the purpose of lis pendens is…”
Rabo Agrifinance v. Terra XXI (N.M. Ct. App. 2020).
· cites it 2× “{18} In this regard, Defendants claim that the nullification of the May 2015 Deeds was improper because the notices of lis pendens filed on June 29, 2007, in Quay County and in Guadalupe County on September 13, 2007, would be of “no value” under NMSA 1978, Section 38-1-15…”
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.