N.M. Stat. § 40-3-6 (2026)

This act [40-3-6 to 40-3-17 NMSA 1978] may be cited as the "Community Property
Act of 1973".

History: 1953 Comp., § 57-4A-1, enacted by Laws 1973, ch. 320, § 1.

                                     ANNOTATIONS

Common-law concepts and community property concepts are distinct. — A
common-law rule would not be authority for dismissing a community property claim.
Rodgers v. Ferguson, 1976-NMCA-098, 89 N.M. 688, 556 P.2d 844, cert. denied, 90
N.M. 7, 558 P.2d 619.

Status of real property is governed in this state by statute. Hollingsworth v. Hicks,
1953-NMSC-045, 57 N.M. 336, 258 P.2d 724.

Duty of court to divide equally property of the community. Fitzgerald v. Fitzgerald,
1962-NMSC-028, 70 N.M. 11, 369 P.2d 398.

Wife has income equal to one-half of total community income regardless of what
proportion of that income is actually paid to her in the form of wages or rents. Duran v.
N.M. Dep't of Human Servs., 1980-NMCA-038, 95 N.M. 196, 619 P.2d 1240.

Aid to child denied where claim based on mother's interest in community income.
— For purposes of determining aid to families with dependent children benefits, where a
wife not only has a technical income resulting from her one-half share in the community
income, but that one-half share in the community income provides the legal basis for
her daughter's legitimate claim on the one-half interest in the community income, the
denial of benefits for the child, on the basis that the mother's income exceeded
permissible limits, is upheld. Duran v. N.M. Dep't of Human Servs., 1980-NMCA-038, 95
N.M. 196, 619 P.2d 1240.

Presumption raised against validity of transaction where wife without advice. —
Because of the relationship of husband and wife, a presumption is raised against the
validity of a transaction in which the wife did not have competent and independent legal
advice in conferring benefits upon the husband. Trujillo v. Padilla, 1968-NMSC-090, 79
N.M. 245, 442 P.2d 203.
Insurance proceeds are community property even if not divided upon divorce. —
Where there is an insured third person (the child) and a spouse (the defendant) as
beneficiary and the proceeds were not paid during marriage, but the right to the
proceeds was obtained during marriage, this right was not changed and was not divided
upon the divorce. Hickson v. Herrmann, 1967-NMSC-083, 77 N.M. 683, 427 P.2d 36.

If husband owned right to receive proceeds of policy as community property of
the parties, this right, not having been disposed of by divorce, became the right of the
parties as tenants in common. Hickson v. Herrmann, 1967-NMSC-083, 77 N.M. 683,
427 P.2d 36.

Subsequent marriage no invalidation of decedent's power to designate mother as
beneficiary. — In an action by an employee's widow who claimed entitlement to all
death benefits under a health benefits plan, although the decedent made his mother the
beneficiary, the decedent's power to designate his mother as beneficiary of all of the
death benefits was not invalidated by his subsequent marriage or by the community
property law. Barela v. Barela, 1980-NMCA-157, 95 N.M. 207, 619 P.2d 1251.

Law reviews. — For article, "Federal Taxation of New Mexico Community Property,"
see 3 Nat. Resources J. 104 (1963).

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

For symposium, "The Effects of an Equal Rights Amendment on the New Mexico
System of Community Property: Problems of Characterization, Management and
Control," see 3 N.M.L. Rev. 11 (1973).

For symposium, "Equal Rights and the Debt Provisions of New Mexico Community
Property Law," see 3 N.M.L. Rev. 57 (1973).

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