N.M. Stat. » N.M. Stat. / Chapter 45 / Article 1
New Mexico Statutes

N.M. Stat. § 45-1-301 (2026)

Application.

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NM-LEGnmonesource.com JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar 
A. Except as otherwise provided in the Uniform Probate Code, the code applies to:

      (1)   the affairs and estates of decedents, missing persons and protected
persons domiciled in New Mexico;

       (2)    the property of nonresidents located in New Mexico or property coming
into the control of a fiduciary who is subject to the laws of New Mexico;

      (3)    incapacitated persons, minors and protected persons in New Mexico;

      (4)    survivorship and related accounts and similar property interests in New
Mexico;

      (5)    the disclaimer of property interests by persons in New Mexico;

     (6)    certain kinds of governing instruments that are governed by the laws of
New Mexico; and

      (7)    the apportionment of taxes on estates subject to tax by New Mexico.

    B. The Uniform Probate Code does not create, enlarge, modify or diminish parental
rights or duties pursuant to the New Mexico Uniform Parentage Act [40-11A-101 to 40-
11A-903 NMSA 1978], the Adoption Act [Chapter 32A, Article 5 NMSA 1978], the
Children's Code [Chapter 32A NMSA 1978] or other law of New Mexico. The definition
or use of terms in the Uniform Probate Code shall not be used to interpret, by analogy
or otherwise, the same or other terms in the New Mexico Uniform Parentage Act, the
Adoption Act, the Children's Code or other law of New Mexico.

History: 1953 Comp., § 32A-1-301, enacted by Laws 1975, ch. 257, § 1-301; 2011, ch.
124, § 6.

                                        ANNOTATIONS

The 2011 amendment, effective January 1, 2012, provided that the Uniform Probate
Code applies to disclaimers of property interests, governing instruments that are
governed by the laws of New Mexico, and the apportionment of taxes on estates; added
Subsection B to provide that the code does not create or alter parental rights or duties
under other New Mexico laws and provided that the definitions of terms in the Uniform
Probate Code cannot be used to define the same terms in other New Mexico laws.

Tort of interference with inheritance is an exception to the requirement that probate
is the only forum for attacking the validity of a testamentary instrument and exists in a
situation where the estate has been depleted so that there is no remedy in probate.
Peralta v. Peralta, 2006-NMCA-033, 139 N.M. 231, 131 P.3d 81.

Where there was both an intervivos transfer of all the property of a decedent's estate
prior to the decedent's death and a claim of improper influence in the revision of the
decedent's will by the execution of a codicil, an attack on the codicil in a probate
proceeding would not be an adequate remedy because the estate was devoid of assets.
Plaintiff was not required to proceed in probate, but could proceed in a civil tort action of
intentional interference with inheritance to attack the validity of the codicil. Peralta v.
Peralta, 2006-NMCA-033, 139 N.M. 231, 131 P.3d 81.

Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — 31 Am. Jur. 2d Absentees §§ 1, 3; 1
Banks § 376; 10 Am. Jur. 2d Executors and Administrators §§ 30, 32, 38 to 43; 39 Am.
Jur. 2d Guardian and Ward § 26; 41 Am. Jur. 2d Incompetent Persons § 9; 76 Am. Jur.
2d Trusts §§ 326 to 328; 79 Am. Jur. 2d Wills §§ 852 to 858.

1 C.J.S. Absentees §§ 3, 4; 33 C.J.S. Executors and Administrators § 2; 39 C.J.S.
Guardian and Ward § 4; 57 C.J.S. Mental Health § 165 et seq.; 90 C.J.S. Trusts §§ 218,
386; 95 C.J.S. Wills §§ 351 to 354, 587.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 2002–2020 · leading case: Wilson v. Fritschy, 55 P.3d 997 (N.M. Ct. App. 2002).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Wilson v. Fritschy, 55 P.3d 997 (N.M. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 4× “{27} Plaintiffs also suggest, somewhat fleetingly, that because Meadows' 1996 trust was not "testamentary," it could not have been adequately addressed in probate.”
Martinez v. Segovia, 62 P.3d 331 (N.M. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 2× “A personal representative has the same standing to sue as the decedent had immediately prior to death. NMSA 1978, § 45-3-703(E) (1975).”
Blumenshine v. Kastler (N.M. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 2× “9 {24} Section 45-1-301(A)(1) of the UPC applies to “the affairs and estates of 10 decedents[.”
Cradon Energy v. Energy Royalties (N.M. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 2× “See NMSA 1978, § 45-1-301(A)(2) (2011) (stating that the UPC applies to “the property of nonresidents located in New Mexico or property coming into the control of a fiduciary who is subject to the laws of New Mexico”); see also NMSA 1978, § 45-1-102(B)(4) (2011) (stating that…”
Eastwood v. Oskins (N.M. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 2× “” Section 45-1-301(1)-(2). There is no dispute that the UPC generally governs this case.”
— N.M. Stat. § 45-1-301(1) — 1 case
Eastwood v. Oskins (N.M. Ct. App. 2020). “” Section 45-1-301(1)-(2). There is no dispute that the UPC generally governs this case.”
— N.M. Stat. § 45-1-301(A) — 2 cases
Martinez v. Segovia, 62 P.3d 331 (N.M. Ct. App. 2002). “A personal representative has the same standing to sue as the decedent had immediately prior to death. NMSA 1978, § 45-3-703(E) (1975).”
Wilson v. Fritschy, 55 P.3d 997 (N.M. Ct. App. 2002). “{27} Plaintiffs also suggest, somewhat fleetingly, that because Meadows' 1996 trust was not "testamentary," it could not have been adequately addressed in probate.”
— N.M. Stat. § 45-1-301(A)(1) — 1 case
Blumenshine v. Kastler (N.M. Ct. App. 2016). “9 {24} Section 45-1-301(A)(1) of the UPC applies to “the affairs and estates of 10 decedents[.”
— N.M. Stat. § 45-1-301(A)(2) — 1 case
Cradon Energy v. Energy Royalties (N.M. Ct. App. 2020). “See NMSA 1978, § 45-1-301(A)(2) (2011) (stating that the UPC applies to “the property of nonresidents located in New Mexico or property coming into the control of a fiduciary who is subject to the laws of New Mexico”); see also NMSA 1978, § 45-1-102(B)(4) (2011) (stating that…”
— N.M. Stat. § 45-1-301(E) — 1 case
Wilson v. Fritschy, 55 P.3d 997 (N.M. Ct. App. 2002). “{27} Plaintiffs also suggest, somewhat fleetingly, that because Meadows' 1996 trust was not "testamentary," it could not have been adequately addressed in probate.”
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.