A. If either party feels aggrieved by the judgment, that party may appeal as in other
civil actions. An appeal by the defendant shall stay the execution of any writ of
restitution; provided that in cases in which the resident is the appellant, the execution of
the writ of restitution shall not be stayed unless the resident, within five days of the filing
of the notice of appeal, pays to the owner or into an escrow account with a professional
escrow agent an amount equal to the rental amount that shall come due from the day
following the judgment through the end of that rental period. The resident shall continue
to pay the monthly rent established by the rental agreement at the time the complaint
was filed, on a monthly basis on the date rent would otherwise become due. Payments
pursuant to this subsection by a subsidized resident shall not exceed the actual amount
of monthly rent paid by that resident. When the resident pays the owner directly, the
owner shall immediately provide a written receipt to the resident upon demand. When
the resident pays into an escrow account the resident shall cause such amounts to be
paid over to the owner immediately upon receipt unless otherwise ordered by the court.
Upon the failure of the resident or the escrow agent to make a monthly rent payment on
the first day rent would otherwise be due, the owner may serve a three-day written
notice on the resident pursuant to Subsection D of Section 47-8-33 NMSA 1978. If the
resident or the resident's escrow agent fails to pay the rent within the three days, a
hearing on the issue shall be scheduled within ten days from the date the court is
notified of the failure to pay rent. In the case of an appeal de novo, the hearing shall be
in the court in which the appeal will be heard. If, at the hearing, the court finds that rent
has not been paid, the court shall immediately lift the stay and issue the writ of
restitution unless the resident demonstrates a legal justification for failing to comply with
the rent payment requirement.
B. In order to stay the execution of a money judgment, the trial court, within its
discretion, may require an appellant to deposit with the clerk of the trial court the
amount of judgment and costs or to give a supersedeas bond in the amount of judgment
and costs with or without surety. Any bond or deposit shall not be refundable during the
pendency of any appeal.
History: 1953 Comp., § 70-7-47, enacted by Laws 1975, ch. 38, § 47; 1989, ch. 253, §
2; 1995, ch. 195, § 22; 1999, ch. 91, § 7.
ANNOTATIONS
The 1999 amendment, effective June 18, 1999, rewrote Subsection A.
The 1995 amendment, effective July 1, 1995, added the subsection designations and
rewrote this section to such an extent that a detailed comparison would be
impracticable.
The 1989 amendment, effective June 16, 1989, made minor stylistic changes in the
second sentence, and inserted the fourth and fifth sentences.
Effect of violation of stay of execution. — This section does not explicitly or implicitly
require that a property owner either do or not do a specific act after the court has issued
a writ of restitution, nor does the statute provide a standard of conduct for a reasonable
person under circumstances where an appeal has been taken. Accordingly, violation of
the statute does not establish negligence per se. Runge v. Fox, 1990-NMCA-086, 110
N.M. 447, 796 P.2d 1143.
Law reviews. — For survey, "The Uniform Owner-Resident Relations Act," see 6
N.M.L. Rev. 293 (1976).
Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — 52A C.J.S. Landlord and Tenant § 784.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
9
cases (
5 in the last 5 years), 1990–2025 · leading case:
Runge v. Fox, 796 P.2d 1143 (N.M. Ct. App. 1990).
Runge v. Fox, 796 P.2d 1143 (N.M. Ct. App. 1990).
· cites it 9× “Three issues are presented on appeal: (1) whether the Sheriff, his deputies, and the County breached their duty to plaintiffs by failing to check whether a notice of appeal had been filed or by failing to have a procedure to determine whether such a notice had been filed; (2)…”
Roser v. Hufstedler, 531 P.3d 615 (N.M. Ct. App. 2023).
· cites it 4× “for restitution of the premises” and “writ of restitution”); NMSA 1978, § 47-8-47(A) (1999) (referring to “the judgment” and “writ of restitution”); NMSA 1978, § 47-8-33(E)(2) (1999) (referring to “a writ of restitution” and “entry of judgment”).”
Absolute Realty v. Martin (N.M. Ct. App. 2025).
· cites it 7× “[1 RP 166-68] In her memorandum in opposition, Defendant asserts that, despite not having paid the appeal bond, the district court erred in granting the motion because Plaintiff violated the procedures found in NMSA 1978, Section 47-8-47 (1999) of the Uniform Owner-Resident…”
Roser v. Hufstedler (N.M. Ct. App. 2023).
· cites it 4× “for restitution of the premises” and “writ of 3 restitution”); NMSA 1978, § 47-8-47(A) (1999) (referring to “the judgment” and 4 “writ of restitution”); NMSA 1978, § 47-8-33(E)(2) (1999) (referring to “a writ of 5 restitution” and “entry of judgment”).”
Coughlin v. CAI, LLC, No. 32,816 (N.M. Ct. App. Mar. 4, 2014).
· cites it 4× “Plaintiffs have cross-appealed asking this Court to set 5 aside the stay of execution of the writ of restitution that resulted from Defendants 6 filing their notice of appeal pursuant to NMSA 1978, Section 47-8-47 (1999), and has 7 permitted Defendants to maintain possession of…”
Arroyo Del Oso Prop. Mgmt. v. Gonzales, No. A-1-CA-40769 (N.M. Ct. App. Feb. 26, 2024).
· cites it 2× “” {5} Third, we disagree with Defendants that their appeal from the district court should have automatically stayed their eviction pursuant to NMSA 1978, Section 47-8-47 (1999). This statute provides for a stay of the execution of a writ of restitution if, within five days of…”
S Knight v. Dardanelles Found., No. 28,941 (N.M. Ct. App. Feb. 4, 2009).
· cites it 2× “[DS 5] 15 NMSA 1978, Section 47-8-47(A) (1999) explains that an appeal “shall stay the 16 execution of any writ of restitution,” provided that if the appeal is brought by the 17 resident, a certain portion of rent has been paid within five days of filing the notice of 18 appeal.”
Sims v. Barncastle, No. A-1-CA-37097 (N.M. Ct. App. Sept. 10, 2018).
“See § 47-8-47(A) (stating that an appeal by a defendant 7 stays the execution of a writ of restitution).”
Slemp v. Mayer, No. A-1-CA-39714 (N.M. Ct. App. Aug. 22, 2024).
“{8} UORRA requires that for nonpayment of rent an owner must serve a three-day written notice on a resident before terminating a rental agreement and/or petitioning the district court to lift its stay of the magistrate court’s writ of restitution.”
N.M. Stat. § 47-8-47(A): 6 cases
Roser v. Hufstedler, 531 P.3d 615 (N.M. Ct. App. 2023).
“for restitution of the premises” and “writ of restitution”); NMSA 1978, § 47-8-47(A) (1999) (referring to “the judgment” and “writ of restitution”); NMSA 1978, § 47-8-33(E)(2) (1999) (referring to “a writ of restitution” and “entry of judgment”).”
Roser v. Hufstedler (N.M. Ct. App. 2023).
“for restitution of the premises” and “writ of 3 restitution”); NMSA 1978, § 47-8-47(A) (1999) (referring to “the judgment” and 4 “writ of restitution”); NMSA 1978, § 47-8-33(E)(2) (1999) (referring to “a writ of 5 restitution” and “entry of judgment”).”
S Knight v. Dardanelles Found., No. 28,941 (N.M. Ct. App. Feb. 4, 2009).
“[DS 5] 15 NMSA 1978, Section 47-8-47(A) (1999) explains that an appeal “shall stay the 16 execution of any writ of restitution,” provided that if the appeal is brought by the 17 resident, a certain portion of rent has been paid within five days of filing the notice of 18 appeal.”
Sims v. Barncastle, No. A-1-CA-37097 (N.M. Ct. App. Sept. 10, 2018).
“See § 47-8-47(A) (stating that an appeal by a defendant 7 stays the execution of a writ of restitution).”
Absolute Realty v. Martin (N.M. Ct. App. 2025).
“[1 RP 166-68] In her memorandum in opposition, Defendant asserts that, despite not having paid the appeal bond, the district court erred in granting the motion because Plaintiff violated the procedures found in NMSA 1978, Section 47-8-47 (1999) of the Uniform Owner-Resident…”
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.