N.M. Stat. § 39-3-30 (2026)

In all civil actions or proceedings of any kind, the party prevailing shall recover his
costs against the other party unless the court orders otherwise for good cause shown.
In all cases triable in the supreme court in the first instance, or removed to the supreme
court or court of appeals upon appeal or writ of error, the taxation of costs shall be in the
discretion of the reviewing court except in those cases in which a different provision is
made by law.
History: Kearny Code, Costs, § 1; C.L. 1865, ch. 45, § 1; C.L. 1884, § 2202; C.L. 1897,
§ 3148; Code 1915, § 4282; Laws 1917, ch. 45, § 1; C.S. 1929, § 105-1301; Laws
1933, ch. 16, § 1; 1953 Comp., § 21-10-27; Laws 1966, ch. 28, § 58.

                                     ANNOTATIONS

Cross references. — For costs on appeal from probate or magistrate court, see 39-2-5
and 39-2-6 NMSA 1978.

For witness fees taxed as costs, see 39-2-9 NMSA 1978.

For taxing costs of additional witnesses, see 39-2-10 NMSA 1978.

For judgment costs, see Rule 1-054 NMRA.

Compiler's notes. — Laws 1966, ch. 28, § 58, recompiled this section. It had been
omitted by the compilers of the 1941 Compilation as superseded by the Supreme Court
Rules.

Rule 12-403 NMRA provides that the party prevailing shall recover his costs unless
otherwise provided by rule or unless the court directs otherwise, and that costs may be
apportioned. The allowable costs are specified. Absent objection or a court order to the
contrary, the clerk is to tax the costs in question.

Discretion of court. — The assessment of costs is entrusted to the sound discretion of
the court, and absent a showing of an abuse of discretion, a reviewing court will not
interfere with such discretion. In re Adoption of Stailey, 1994-NMCA-015, 117 N.M. 199,
870 P.2d 161.

The district court abused its discretion in denying the award of costs to the
prevailing party. — Where plaintiffs sued the department of transportation (DOT) for
personal injuries and loss of consortium following a vehicle collision on New Mexico
highway 599 (NM 599) in Santa Fe county, New Mexico that resulted in one death and
severe injuries to plaintiff, alleging that DOT's inadequate traffic controls and warnings
caused the collision, and where, following a three-day jury trial, the jury rendered its
verdict in favor of DOT, and where, following the entry of the verdict, the district court
denied DOT's bill of costs, the district court abused its discretion in denying the award of
costs to DOT, because if the district court, in the exercise of its discretion, does not
award costs to the prevailing party, it should specify the reasons for its denial unless the
basis for denying costs is clear from the record, and, in this case, the district court did
not explain the basis for its decision to deny costs. Garcia v. N.M. Dep't of Transp.,
2023-NMCA-066, cert. denied.

Reducing award of costs based on financial disparity between parties. — The
district court abused its discretion when, without evidence, it reduced a cost award to
defendant because of the financial disparity between the parties, plaintiff's perceived
inability to pay all of defendant's costs, and the chilling effect that a large cost award
would have on future litigation under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Franchising Act. Key v.
Chrysler Motors Corp., 2000-NMSC-010, 128 N.M. 739, 998 P.2d 575.

Expenses not costs. — Expenses for photocopies, telephone, facsimile, courier,
mileage, travel, and per diem, and a large expense paid for obtaining plaintiff's own
medical records, were not properly recoverable as costs. Gillingham v. Reliable
Chevrolet, 1998-NMCA-143, 126 N.M. 30, 966 P.2d 197, overruled on other grounds by
Fernandez v. Espanola Pub. Sch. Dist., 2005-NMSC-026, 138 N.M. 283, 119 P.3d 163.

Computer-assisted legal research. — Computer-assisted legal research expenses
are not allowable as costs. Key v. Chrysler Motors Corp., 2000-NMSC-010, 128 N.M.
739, 998 P.2d 575.

Costs allowed in case of fraudulent claim. — In an action to quiet title to property,
where a claim was based upon a document expressly found to have been forged by
defendant, the trial court's order denying an award of costs for plaintiff's expert witness
and imposition of sanctions against defendant was reversed and remanded for
reconsideration. Martinez v. Martinez, 1997-NMCA-096, 123 N.M. 816, 945 P.2d 1034.

Costs need not be awarded. — Where the district court imposed the sanction of
dismissal against plaintiff for discovery violations, it did not abuse its discretion in
viewing the assessment of costs as an additional sanction and, thus, grounds for
refusing to award defendant its costs. Reed v. Furr's Supermarkets, Inc., 2000-NMCA-
091, 129 N.M. 639, 11 P.3d 603, cert. denied, 129 N.M. 599, 11 P.3d 563.

Costs may be recovered against state. — The legislature, in this section, gives
express authority, without exception, to the recovery of costs against any losing party,
including the state. Kirby v. N.M. State Hwy. Dep't, 1982-NMCA-014, 97 N.M. 692, 643
P.2d 256, cert. denied, 98 N.M. 51, 644 P.2d 1040.

Assessment of costs against state not authorized. — Neither this section nor any
other statutory provision provides for the recovery of costs against the state in a criminal
case; the legislature has made a conscious determination that only a convicted
defendant will be liable for costs. State v. Hudson, 2003-NMCA-139, 134 N.M. 564, 80
P.3d 501.

Decision to award costs on appeal is within discretion of supreme court and is
final. Spingola v. Spingola, 1979-NMSC-079, 93 N.M. 598, 603 P.2d 708.

Physicians appearing as expert witnesses. — Fees paid to physicians who testified
as expert witnesses at trial or served as consulting experts to plaintiff were properly
awarded as costs against defendant. Gillingham v. Reliable Chevrolet, 1998-NMCA-
143, 126 N.M. 30, 966 P.2d 197, overruled by Fernandez v. Espanola Pub. Sch. Dist.,
2005-NMSC-026, 138 N.M. 283, 119 P.3d 163.
Expert witnesses not testifying because hearing rescheduled. — The prevailing
party may not recover fees for expert witnesses who did not testify because the hearing
was rescheduled through no fault of either party. Jimenez v. Found. Reserve Ins. Co.,
1988-NMSC-052, 107 N.M. 322, 757 P.2d 792.

Action under Children's Code. — A specific Children's Code provision for assessing
costs, former 32-1-41 NMSA 1978, controlled, in a child abuse and neglect proceeding,
over this general statute. State ex rel. Human Servs. Dep't v. Judy H., 1987-NMCA-045,
105 N.M. 678, 735 P.2d 1184, cert. denied, 105 N.M. 644, 735 P.2d 1150.

Effect on finality of proceeding for costs — The pendency of a proceeding solely to
determine the amount of costs does not render an otherwise final judgment nonfinal.
Schleft v. Bd. of Educ., 1988-NMCA-010, 107 N.M. 56, 752 P.2d 248, cert. denied, 109
N.M 232, 784 P.2d 419.

Award against prevailing party. — The court cannot order a prevailing party to share,
or shoulder, all or part of the costs of an unsuccessful litigant, unless the costs are
intended to serve as a sanction and the court clearly expresses its reasons for imposing
such sanction. Absent a finding of bad faith or misconduct by a prevailing party during
litigation, neither Rule 1-054E NMRA nor this section authorizes a court to award costs
against a prevailing party. In re Adoption of Stailey, 1994-NMCA-015, 117 N.M. 199,
870 P.2d 161.

Costs awarded to party supporting valuation determined by court. — Where
central issue is valuation of plaintiff's interest in an LLC, and where trial court entered
judgment for plaintiff on the amount defendant agreed was the value of plaintiff's interest
rather than on higher amount claimed by plaintiff, defendant was the prevailing party for
purpose of awarding costs to defendant. Mayeux v. Winder, 2006-NMCA-028, 139 N.M.
235, 131 P.3d 85.

Mediation costs not recoverable. — Where mediation is conducted pursuant to
agreement of the parties, not by order of the court, the expense of the mediator's fee
should not be a recoverable cost, absent an enforceable agreement permitting such
award. Smith v. Village of Ruidoso, 1999-NMCA-151, 128 N.M. 470, 994 P.2d 50.

Law reviews. — For article, "Settlement Without Sacrifice: The Recovery of Expert
Witness Fees as Costs Under New Mexico's Rule 1-068," see 38 N.M.L. Rev. 655
(2008).

Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — 5 Am. Jur. 2d Appellate Review § 909
et seq.

Attorney's fees in products liability suits, 53 A.L.R.4th 414.

Attorney's personal liability for expenses incurred in relation to services for client, 66
A.L.R.4th 256.
Recoverability of cost of computerized legal research under 28 USCS § 1920 or Rule
54(d), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 80 A.L.R. Fed. 168.

20 C.J.S. Costs § 157 et seq.