N.M. Stat. » Chapter 39 — Judgments, Costs, Appeals
New Mexico Statutes

N.M. Stat. § 39-5-23 (2026)

Duty to record redemption

✓ laws through the 2025 session (retrieved May 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NM-LEGnmonesource.com JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A. In all cases of redemption of lands from sale pursuant to the provisions of Sections 39-5-17 through 39-5-23 NMSA 1978:

(1) if the redemption is by payment to the purchaser, it is the duty of the purchaser within forty-five days of receiving payment to create an acknowledged instrument in writing evidencing the redemption; or

(2) if the redemption is by making deposit in the office of the clerk of the district court upon approval of the redemption by the district judge, it is the duty of the clerk of the court to create under the seal of the court an instrument evidencing the redemption.

B. It is the duty of the party redeeming to record the instrument evidencing the redemption in the office of the county clerk in the same manner as other instruments of writing affecting title to real estate.

History: Laws 1931, ch. 149, § 6; 1941 Comp., § 21-223; 1953 Comp., § 24-2-23; 2013, ch. 214, § 12.

ANNOTATIONS

The 2013 amendment, effective June 14, 2013, provided for the preparation and filing instruments of redemption; added the title; in Subsection A, in the introductory sentence, after "lands from sale", deleted "under the terms and" and added "pursuant to", after "provisions of" deleted "Section 39-5-17", and language that required the preparation and filing of instruments of redemption and payment of a filing fee, and added "Sections 39-5-17 through 39-5-23 NMSA 1978"; added Paragraphs (1) and (2) of Subsection A; and added Subsection B.

Payment cannot be conditioned. — This section does not indicate that a debtor or its financier can condition the payment to the purchaser required by 39-5-18 A(1) NMSA 1978 upon this section’s previous or contemporaneous satisfaction. Brown v. Trujillo, 2004-NMCA-040, 135 N.M. 365, 88 P.3d 881, cert. denied, 2004-NMCERT-004, 135 N.M. 562, 91 P.3d 603.

By conditionally tendering money to purchaser and then filing petition without cash deposit with the trial court, debtor did not substantially comply with either procedure the legislature has created. Brown v. Trujillo, 2004-NMCA-040, 135 N.M. 365, 88 P.3d 881, cert. denied, 2004-NMCERT-004, 135 N.M. 562, 91 P.3d 603.

Applicability to extrajudicial redemption procedure. — The requirement of this section for recordation of redemption applies to extra-judicial redemption procedure authorized under 39-5-18 NMSA 1978. W. Bank v. Malooly, 1995-NMCA-044, 119 N.M. 743, 895 P.2d 265.

Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — 59 C.J.S. Mortgages § 852.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 1995–2018 · leading case: W. Bank of Las Cruces v. Malooly, 895 P.2d 265 (N.M. Ct. App. 1995).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
W. Bank of Las Cruces v. Malooly, 895 P.2d 265 (N.M. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 12× “NMSA 1978, Section 39-5-23 (Repl.Pamp.1991) provides: In all cases of redemption of lands from sale under the terms and provisions of this act [39-5-17 to 39-5-23 NMSA 1978], it shall be the duty of the purchaser, his personal representatives or assigns, or the *272 clerk of the…”
Brown v. Trujillo, 2004-NMCA-040, 88 P.3d 881. · cites it 6× “That statute, however, does not indicate that a debtor or its financier can condition the payment to the purchaser required by Section 39-5-18(A)(l) upon Section 39-5-23’s previous or eontemporaneous satisfaction.”
Tal Realty Inc. v. Mobley, No. A-1-CA-35696 (N.M. Ct. App. Apr. 2, 2018). · cites it 20× “On appeal, TAL Realty argues that the 18 assignees of the first priority right of redemption, who were also the foreclosure sale 19 purchasers, did not timely exercise their redemption right because they did not record 20 the assignment evidencing the redemption with the county…”
N.M. Stat. § 39-5-23(A)(1): 1 case
Tal Realty Inc. v. Mobley, No. A-1-CA-35696 (N.M. Ct. App. Apr. 2, 2018). “On appeal, TAL Realty argues that the 18 assignees of the first priority right of redemption, who were also the foreclosure sale 19 purchasers, did not timely exercise their redemption right because they did not record 20 the assignment evidencing the redemption with the county…”
N.M. Stat. § 39-5-23(B): 1 case
Tal Realty Inc. v. Mobley, No. A-1-CA-35696 (N.M. Ct. App. Apr. 2, 2018). “On appeal, TAL Realty argues that the 18 assignees of the first priority right of redemption, who were also the foreclosure sale 19 purchasers, did not timely exercise their redemption right because they did not record 20 the assignment evidencing the redemption with the county…”
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.