New Mexico Statutes

N.M. Stat. § 40-3-2 (2026)

[Methods for holding property.]

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NM-LEGnmonesource.com JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Husband and wife may hold property as joint tenants, tenants in common or as
community property.

History: Laws 1907, ch. 37, § 7; Code 1915, § 2756; C.S. 1929, § 68-301; 1941 Comp.,
§ 65-302; 1953 Comp., § 57-3-2.

                                     ANNOTATIONS

Dissimilarity of estate by entireties and community estate. — There is no similarity
between a community estate and an estate by the entireties, except as to the husband
and wife feature, and where it has been found necessary to segregate the husband's or
wife's interest in community property the courts have found legal principles to justify it.
McDonald v. Senn, 1949-NMSC-020, 53 N.M. 198, 204 P.2d 990, 10 A.L.R.2d 966.
When joint tenancy arises. — Joint tenancy arises where two or more persons have
any subject of property jointly in which there is a unity of interest, unity of title, unity of
time and unity of possession. Hernandez v. Becker, 54 F.2d 542 (10th Cir. 1931).

Ultimate effect of transmutation of judgment debtor's property from a community
status to a tenancy in common after divorce is that wife's one-half interest is her
separate property, and not subject to levy and execution by judgment creditor. Atlas
Corp. v. DeVilliers, 447 F.2d 799 (10th Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 405 U.S. 933, 92 S. Ct.
939, 30 L. Ed. 2d 809, reh’g denied, 405 U.S. 1033, 92 S. Ct. 1288, 31 L. Ed. 2d 491
(1972).

Community estate within meaning of federal estate tax. — Community estate is
neither a joint tenancy nor an estate by the entireties, within meaning of federal estate
tax statute. Hernandez v. Becker, 54 F.2d 542 (10th Cir. 1931).

Wife's interest in community property was not of such a character as to give rise, upon
her death, to a federal estate tax measured by the value thereof. Hernandez v. Becker,
54 F.2d 542 (10th Cir. 1931).

Community is liable for community debts and there is a presumption that all debts
contracted during the marriage are community debts. 1960 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 60-37.

Law reviews. — For comment, "Community Property - Power of Testamentary
Disposition - Inequality Between Spouses," see 7 Nat. Resources J. 645 (1967).

For symposium, "Tax Implications of the Equal Rights Amendment," see 3 N.M.L. Rev.
69 (1973).

For article, "The Community Property Act of 1973: A Commentary and Quasi-Legislative
History," see 5 N.M.L. Rev. 1 (1974).

For note, "Community Property - Transmutation of Community Property: A Preference
for Joint Tenancy in New Mexico?" see 11 N.M.L. Rev. 421 (1981).

Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — 15A Am. Jur. 2d Community Property
§§ 1 to 115; 41 Am. Jur. 2d Husband and Wife §§ 55 to 79.

Profits from business operating on spouse's capital as community property, 29 A.L.R.2d
530.

Transmutation of community funds or property into property held by spouses in joint
tenancy, 30 A.L.R.2d 1241.

Severance or termination of joint tenancy by conveyances of divided interest directly to
self, 7 A.L.R.4th 1268.
Proceeds or derivatives of real property held by entirety as themselves held by entirety,
22 A.L.R.4th 459.

Validity and effect of one spouse's conveyance to other spouse of interest in property
held as estate by the entireties, 18 A.L.R.5th 230.

41 C.J.S. Husband and Wife §§ 122 to 219.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases, 1993–2014 · leading case: Swink v. Fingado, 850 P.2d 978 (N.M. 1993).
Swink v. Fingado, 850 P.2d 978 (N.M. 1993). · cites it 4× “Under [NMSA 1978, § 40-3-2], which remains in effect, the spouses are accorded the right to hold property between them as community property, as joint tenants or as tenants in common.”
Gonzales v. Beery (In Re Beery), 295 B.R. 385 (Bankr. D.N.M. 2003). · cites it 2× “” NMSA 1978, § 40-3-2 (1999). There is a presumption that all property acquired during the marriage is community property unless otherwise designated as held in another ownership form.”
State v. Parvilus, 2013 NMCA 25 (N.M. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 2× “h 1973) (explaining execution and recording of marriage settlement and separation contracts); NMSA 1978, §§ 40-2-8 to -9 (1907) (describing the extent to which husband and wife can contract to alter their legal relationship and consideration for such a contract); NMSA 1978, §…”
State v. Parvilus, 2014 NMSC 028 (N.M. 2014). · cites it 2× “e execution and recording of marriage settlement and separation contracts); NMSA 1978, §§ 40-2-8 to -9 (1907) (explaining the extent to which husband and wife can contract to alter their legal relationship and the consideration required for such a contract); NMSA 1978, § 40-3-1…”
State v. Parvilus, 2014 NMSC 28 (N.M. 2014). · cites it 2× “e execution and recording of marriage settlement and separation contracts); NMSA 1978, §§ 40-2-8 to -9 (1907) (explaining the extent to which husband and wife can contract to alter their legal relationship and the consideration required for such a contract); NMSA 1978, § 40-3-1…”
State v. Parvilus, 2013 NMCA 025 (N.M. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 2× “h 1973) (explaining execution and recording of marriage settlement and separation contracts); NMSA 1978, §§ 40-2-8 to -9 (1907) (describing the extent to which husband and wife can contract to alter their legal relationship and consideration for such a contract); NMSA 1978, §…”
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.