N.M. Stat. § 44-7A-1 (2026)

(a) The provisions of this act may be cited as the "Uniform Arbitration Act" [44-7A-1
NMSA 1978].

   (b) As used in the Uniform Arbitration Act:
        (1)    "arbitration organization" means an association, agency, board,
commission or other entity that is neutral and initiates, sponsors or administers an
arbitration proceeding or is involved in the appointment of an arbitrator;

       (2)     "arbitrator" means an individual appointed to render an award, alone or
with others, in a controversy that is subject to an agreement to arbitrate;

       (3)      "court" means a court of competent jurisdiction in this state;

       (4)    "disabling civil dispute clause" means a provision modifying or limiting
procedural rights necessary or useful to a consumer, borrower, tenant or employee in
the enforcement of substantive rights against a party drafting a standard form contract
or lease, such as, by way of example, a clause requiring the consumer, tenant or
employee to:

           (a) assert a claim against the party who prepared the form in a forum that is
less convenient, more costly or more dilatory than a judicial forum established in this
state for resolution of the dispute;

           (b) assume a risk of liability for the legal fees of the party preparing the
contract, but a seller, lessor or lender may exact for a buyer, tenant or borrower an
obligation to reimburse the seller, lessor or lender for a reasonable fee paid to secure
enforcement of a promise to pay money;

           (c) forego access to the discovery of evidence as provided in the rules of
procedure of a convenient judicial forum available to hear and decide a dispute between
the parties;

          (d) present evidence to a purported neutral person who may reasonably be
expected to regard the party preparing the contract as more likely to be a future
employer of the neutral person;

         (e) forego recourse to appeal from a decision not based on substantial
evidence or disregarding the legal rights of the consumer, tenant or employee;

             (f) decline to participate in a class action; or

          (g) forego an award of attorney fees, civil penalties or multiple damages
otherwise available in a judicial proceeding;

       (5)      "knowledge" means actual knowledge;

      (6)      "person" means an individual, corporation, business trust, estate, trust,
partnership, limited liability company, association, joint venture, government,
governmental subdivision, governmental agency, governmental instrumentality, public
corporation or any other legal or commercial entity;
        (7)    "record" means information that is inscribed on a tangible medium or that
is stored in an electronic or other medium and is retrievable in perceivable form; and

       (8)    "standard form contract or lease" means a written instrument prepared by
a party for whom its use is routine in business transactions with consumers of goods or
services, borrowers, tenants or employees.

History: Laws 2001, ch. 227, § 1.

                                     ANNOTATIONS

Compiler's note. — Laws 2002, ch. 227, § 33 repealed the former Uniform Arbitration
Act, Sections 44-7-1 to 44-7-22 NMSA 1978, enacted by Laws 1971, ch. 168, §23. The
Uniform Arbitration Act compiled as 44-7A-1 to 44-7A-32 NMSA 1978 was enacted
effective July 1, 2001.

Malicious abuse of process. — For purposes of the tort of malicious abuse of
process, arbitration proceedings are judicial proceedings, and the improper use of
process in an arbitration proceeding to accomplish an illegitimate end may form the
basis of a malicious abuse of process claim. Durham v. Guest, 2009-NMSC-007, 145
N.M. 694, 204 P.3d 19, rev’g 2007-NMCA-144, 142 N.M. 817, 171 P.3d 756.

Malicious abuse of process in arbitration proceedings. — The plaintiffs’ allegation
that the defendant issued a subpoena during an arbitration proceeding for the purpose
of extortion is sufficient to state a malicious abuse of process claim when the defendant
did not initiate the arbitration proceeding against the plaintiffs. Durham v. Guest, 2009-
NMSC-007, 145 N.M. 694, 204 P.3d 19, rev'g 2007-NMCA-144, 142 N.M. 817, 171
P.3d 756 and overruling in part DeVaney v. Thriftway Marketing Corp., 1998-NMSC-
001, 124 N.M. 512, 953 P.2d 277.

Cases under prior law. — The pre-2001 cases below were decided under the former
Uniform Arbitration Act, Sections 44-7-1 to 44-7-22 NMSA 1978. Because of the
similarities between the two laws, the case annotations have been retained and
included as annotations to the 2001 Uniform Arbitration Act.

Legislative intent in enacting Uniform Arbitration Act and the policy of the courts in
enforcing it is to reduce caseloads in the courts, not only by allowing arbitration, but also
by requiring controversies to be resolved by arbitration where contracts or other
documents so provide. Dairyland Ins. Co. v. Rose, 1979-NMSC-021, 92 N.M. 527, 591
P.2d 281; Daniels Ins. Agency, Inc. v. Jordan, 1982-NMSC-148, 99 N.M. 297, 657 P.2d
624.

Uniform Arbitration Act supersedes conflicting common-law authority. Andrews v.
Stearns-Roger, Inc., 1979-NMSC-089, 93 N.M. 527, 602 P.2d 624.
In New Mexico, arbitration proceedings and awards are governed both by common law
and by the Uniform Arbitration Act, but provisions of the act govern where the act
conflicts with the common law. Daniels Ins. Agency, Inc. v. Jordan, 1982-NMSC-148, 99
N.M. 297, 657 P.2d 624.

Announced policy of New Mexico favors and encourages arbitration as a means of
conserving the time and resources of the courts and the contracting parties, and to this
end the legislature has assigned the courts a minimal role in supervising arbitration
practice and procedures. K.L. House Constr. Co. v. City of Albuquerque, 1978-NMSC-
025, 91 N.M. 492, 576 P.2d 752; Bernalillo Cnty. Med. Ctr. Employees' Ass'n Local
2370 v. Cancelosi, 1978-NMSC-086, 92 N.M. 307, 587 P.2d 960.

Unlicensed business cannot compel arbitration. — Texas corporations unauthorized
to do business in New Mexico were unable to compel two dentists to arbitrate a dispute
arising from an alleged breach of architectural and construction contracts for the
construction of dental offices because a suit to compel arbitration is essentially a suit for
specific performance and the corporations, not licensed to do business in New Mexico,
cannot perform. Shaw v. Kuhnel & Assocs., Inc., 1985-NMSC-008, 102 N.M. 607, 698
P.2d 880.

Third-party beneficiary of arbitration agreement. — Where plaintiff entered into a
title loan agreement with defendant; a condition of the loan required plaintiff to maintain
insurance for the full value of the vehicle; plaintiff purchased the required insurance; the
vehicle was subsequently involved in an accident that rendered the vehicle inoperable;
and the loan agreement contained an arbitration provision which provided that plaintiff
agreed to submit to arbitration all claims or disputes against all persons who may be
liable to either plaintiff or the lender, the insurance company was a third-party
beneficiary under the arbitration and could compel arbitration of plaintiff’s claim against
the insurance company. Rivera v. Am. Gen. Fin. Servs., Inc., 2010-NMCA-046, 148
N.M. 784, 242 P.3d 351, rev'd, 2011-NMSC-033, 150 N.M. 398, 259 P.3d 803.

Arbitration agreement to be interpreted by rules of contract law. — The terms of
the arbitration agreement are to be interpreted by the rules of contract law. Christmas v.
Cimarron Realty Co., 1982-NMSC-079, 98 N.M. 330, 648 P.2d 788.

Equitable estoppel is applicable. — A nonparty to a contract may be equitably
estopped from refusing to comply with a reasonable arbitration provision contained in
the contract where the nonparty attempts to enforce some aspect of the contract.
Damon v. StrucSure Home Warranty, LLC, 2014-NMCA-116.

Nonparties to an arbitration agreement. — Plaintiffs, as subsequent purchasers of a
home and nonparties to a home warranty agreement, are bound by an arbitration
provision contained in the warranty agreement if they directly seek the benefits of the
warranty agreement. Damon v. StrucSure Home Warranty, LLC, 2014-NMCA-116.
Both statutory and common-law arbitration exist without conflict. — Since nothing
is said in these provisions that common-law arbitrations are abolished, both methods of
arbitration may exist, one under the statute and the other under the common law without
conflicting with each other. Robinson v. Navajo Freight Lines, 1962-NMSC-043, 70 N.M.
215, 372 P.2d 801 (decision under former law).

Agreement defines scope of jurisdiction of arbitration. — Parties contracting to
resolve disputes by arbitration are bound by their agreement. The terms of the
agreement define the scope of the jurisdiction, conditions, limitations and restrictions on
the matters to be arbitrated. Christmas v. Cimarron Realty Co., 1982-NMSC-079, 98
N.M. 330, 648 P.2d 788.

Terms of arbitration agreement govern disqualification of arbitrator. — Where
defendants and contractor, who was hired to do concrete and framing work on
defendants’ property, entered into a binding arbitration agreement following a dispute
regarding money due on construction work at defendants’ property, and where
contractor subsequently requested that the arbitrator be disqualified for refusing to
perform his duties and for non-neutrality, the district court did not abuse its discretion in
concluding that the parties’ arbitration was subject to all the rules and procedures of the
American Arbitration Association (AAA), including the rule regarding disqualification of
an arbitrator and that the AAA has the authority to disqualify a designated arbitrator if
the AAA determines that such a disqualification is warranted under its rules and
procedures, because the natural construction of the parties’ arbitration agreement was
that the parties intended to arbitrate disputes between them under all the AAA rules,
and there was no language of limitation in the arbitration agreement demonstrating an
intent to limit the scope of the AAA’s rules. L.D. Miller Construction, Inc. v.
Kirschenbaum, 2017-NMCA-030.

Arbitration agreement will be given broad interpretation. — When the parties agree
to arbitrate any potential claims or disputes arising out of their relationships by contract
or otherwise, the arbitration agreement will be given broad interpretation, unless the
parties themselves limit arbitration to specific areas or matters. Barring such limiting
language, the courts only decide the threshold question of whether there is an
agreement to arbitrate. K.L. House Constr. Co. v. City of Albuquerque, 1978-NMSC-
025, 91 N.M. 492, 576 P.2d 752.

Forum for resolution of disputed interpretation. — Where a complaint for
declaratory judgment raises questions of law arising from the disputed interpretation of
an arbitration contract, the proper forum for resolution of such questions is the trial
court. Guaranty Nat'l Ins. Co. v. Valdez, 1988-NMSC-090, 107 N.M. 764, 764 P.2d
1322.

Decision of joint committee subject to same standards as arbitrator's award. —
Where the parties voluntarily submit a grievance to a joint management union
committee for decision, the decision of that committee is subject to and governed by the
same standards as an arbitrator's award, and is to be accorded the same finality.
Andrews v. Stearns-Roger, Inc., 1979-NMSC-089, 93 N.M. 527, 602 P.2d 624.

When trial court determines force of disputed contract. — When a petition is filed to
compel arbitration pursuant to a contract's arbitration clause and the responding party
denies the existence or validity of the contract, the trial court must determine whether
the contract is still in force to compel the requested arbitration. Gonzales v. United S.W.
Nat'l Bank, 1979-NMSC-086, 93 N.M. 522, 602 P.2d 619.

Determination of fraud in the inducement. — When a party challenges only an
arbitration provision as fraudulently induced, the district court must decide this issue
before sending the entire contract containing the arbitration provision to the arbitrator.
Murken v. Deutsche Morgan Grenfell, Inc., 2006-NMCA-080, 140 N.M. 68, 139 P.3d
864.

Law reviews. — For note, "Uninsured Motorist Arbitration," see 3 N.M. L. Rev. 220
(1973).

For article, "The Contract to Arbitrate Future Disputes: A Comparison of the New
Mexico Act with the New York and Federal Acts," see 9 N.M.L. Rev. 71 (1978-79).

For article, "Arbitration of Domestic Relations Disputes in New Mexico," see 16 N.M.L.
Rev. 321 (1986).

For survey of construction law in New Mexico, see 18 N.M.L. Rev. 331 (1988).

Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — 4 Am. Jur. 2d Alternative Dispute
Resolution §§ 8 et seq., 70 et seq.

Matters arbitrable under arbitration provisions of collective labor contract, 24 A.L.R.2d
752.

Construction and effect of severance or dismissal pay provisions of employment
contract or collective labor agreement, 40 A.L.R.2d 1044.

Contract providing that it is governed by or subject to rules or regulations of a particular
trade, business or association as incorporating agreement to arbitrate, 41 A.L.R.2d 872.

Constitutionality of compulsory arbitration statutes, 55 A.L.R.2d 432.

Arbitration of disputes within close corporation, 64 A.L.R.2d 643.

Power of president of corporation to commence or to carry on arbitration proceedings,
65 A.L.R.2d 1321.
Dissolved corporation's power to participate in arbitration proceedings, 71 A.L.R.2d
1121.

Agreement to arbitrate future controversies as binding on infants, 78 A.L.R.2d 1292.

Covenant in lease to arbitrate, or to submit to appraisal, as running with the leasehold
so as to bind assignee, 81 A.L.R.2d 804.

Availability and scope of declaratory judgment actions in determining rights of parties, or
powers and exercise thereof by arbitrators, under arbitration agreements, 12 A.L.R.3d
854.

Validity and effect, and remedy in respect, of contractual stipulation to submit disputes
to arbitration in another jurisdiction, 12 A.L.R.3d 892.

Validity and construction of provision for arbitration of disputes as to alimony or support
payments, or child visitation or custody matters, 38 A.L.R.5th 69.

Municipal corporation's power to submit to arbitration, 20 A.L.R.3d 569.

Validity and enforceability of provision for binding arbitration, and waiver thereof, 24
A.L.R.3d 1325.

Delay in asserting contractual right to arbitration as precluding enforcement thereof, 25
A.L.R.3d 1171.

Breach or repudiation of collective labor contract as subject to, or as affecting right to
enforce, arbitration provision in contract, 29 A.L.R.3d 688.

Breach or repudiation of contract as affecting right to enforce arbitration clause therein,
32 A.L.R.3d 377.

Participation in arbitration proceedings as waiver of objections to arbitrability, 33
A.L.R.3d 1242.

Statute of limitations as bar to arbitration under agreement, 94 A.L.R.3d 533.

Conflict of laws as to validity and effect of arbitration provision in contract for purchase
or sale of goods, products, or services, 95 A.L.R.3d 1145.

Defendant's participation in action as waiver of right to arbitration of dispute involved
therein, 98 A.L.R.3d 767.

Claim of fraud in inducement of contract as subject to compulsory arbitration clause
contained in contract, 11 A.L.R.4th 774.
Liability of organization sponsoring or administering arbitration to parties involved in
proceeding, 41 A.L.R.4th 1013.

Attorney's submission of dispute to arbitration, or amendment of arbitration agreement,
without client's knowledge or consent, 48 A.L.R.4th 127.

Validity and construction of agreement between attorney and client to arbitrate disputes
arising between them, 26 A.L.R.5th 107.

Alternative dispute resolution: sanctions for failure to participate in good faith in, or
comply with agreement made in, mediation, 43 A.L.R.5th 545.

Participation in arbitration proceedings as waiver to objections to arbitrability under state
law, 56 A.L.R.5th 757.

Consolidation by federal court of arbitration proceedings brought under Federal
Arbitration Act (9 USCS § 4), 104 A.L.R. Fed. 251.

Enforceability of arbitration clauses in collective bargaining agreements as regards
claims under federal civil rights statutes, 152 A.L.R. Fed. 75.

6 C.J.S. Arbitration § 1 et seq.