N.M. Stat. § 45-5-402 (2026)

persons.
    After the service of notice in a proceeding seeking the appointment of a conservator
or other protective order and until termination of the proceeding, the court in which the
petition is filed has:

   A. exclusive jurisdiction to determine the need for a conservator or other protective
order;

    B. exclusive jurisdiction to determine how the estate of the protected person which
is subject to the laws of New Mexico shall be managed, expended or distributed to or for
the use of the protected person or any of his dependents; and

   C. jurisdiction to determine the validity of claims against the person or estate of the
protected person and his title to any property or claim.

History: 1953 Comp., § 32A-5-402, enacted by Laws 1975, ch. 257, § 5-402.

                                     ANNOTATIONS

District court had jurisdiction to void incapacitated person’s estate plan. — Where
the district court appointed a guardian and conservator to protect the person and assets
of the incapacitated person who was suffering from Alzheimer’s disease; after the
conservator was appointed and without notifying the district court, the conservator, or
the guardian ad litem, the spouse of the incapacitated person and the spouse’s attorney
met with the incapacitated person; during the meeting, the incapacitated person
executed a new estate plan giving the spouse control of the incapacitated person’s
estate; and the conservator tried to stop the meeting and the execution of the new
estate plan, the district court had general civil jurisdiction over the conservatorship and
jurisdiction to void the new estate plan prior to the death of the incapacitated person.
Clinesmith v. Temmerman, 2013-NMCA-024, 298 P.3d 458, cert. denied, 2013-
NMCERT-001.

Distribution of estate of protected person. — Where, during the lifetime of the
decedent, the conservator of the property and affairs of the decedent discovered an
executed inter vivos trust agreement which provided for the distribution of the trust
estate after the decedent’s death to a cousin and three step-children; the conservator
did not discover any assets or property that the decedent transferred to the trust or any
documents identifying the trust assets; the conservator also found an unexecuted pour-
over will that provided for the transfer of the decedent’s probate assets to the trust upon
the decedent’s death; before the decedent died, the conservator filed a petition for
instructions with the district court regarding whether the conservator should transfer the
decedent’s assets to the trust; before the district court heard the conservator’s petition,
the decedent died leaving an estate of seven million dollars; one of the decedent’s
intestate heirs instituted a separate probate proceeding in district court; and the district
court in the conservatorship proceedings determined that the probate court should
decide the issue of whether to transfer the decedent’s assets to the trust and terminated
the protective proceeding without deciding the petition for instructions, the proper forum
to determine whether to fund the decedent’s trust and give effect to the decedent’s
pour-over will was in the probate court. In re Borland, 2012-NMCA-108, 288 P.3d 912.

Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — 14 C.J.S. Chemical Dependents § 4; 39
C.J.S. Guardian and Ward § 11; 49 C.J.S. Insane Persons § 10.