In any action brought under Section 57-12-8 NMSA 1978, if the court finds that a
person is willfully using or has willfully used a method, act or practice declared unlawful
by the Unfair Practices Act, the attorney general, upon petition to the court, may
recover, on behalf of the state of New Mexico, a civil penalty of not exceeding five
thousand dollars ($5,000) per violation.
History: 1953 Comp., § 49-15-9, enacted by Laws 1970, ch. 38, § 2.
ANNOTATIONS
Repeals and reenactments. — Laws 1970, ch. 38, § 2, repeals 49-15-9, 1953 Comp.,
relating to the civil penalty for violation of Sections 3 and 5 of the act, and enacts the
above section.
Willfully defined. — The legislature contemplated proof of some culpable mental state
to demonstrate "willfully", as set forth in 57-12-11 NMSA 1978; willful conduct is the
intentional doing of an act with knowledge that harm may result. Atherton v. Gopin,
2015-NMCA-003, cert. granted, 2014-NMCERT-012.
Law reviews. — For article, "Consumer Class Actions Under the New Mexico Unfair
Practices Act," see 4 N.M.L. Rev. 49 (1973).
For note, "State Securities Law: A Valuable Tool for Regulating Investment Land Sales,"
see 7 N.M.L. Rev. 265 (1977).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
8
cases (
4 in the last 5 years), 2014–2025 · leading case:
Atherton v. Gopin, 2015 NMCA 3 (N.M. Ct. App. 2014).
Atherton v. Gopin, 2015 NMCA 3 (N.M. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 2× “Section 57-12-8. For more aggravated circumstances—where a person has “willfully used a method, act or practice declared unlawful by the [UPA]”—the Attorney General can seek “a civil penalty of not exceeding five thousand dollars ($5,000) per violation.”
State Ex Rel. King v. B&B Inv. Grp., Inc., 2014 NMSC 24 (N.M. 2014).
“The district court’s permanent injunction is an appropriate remedy {28} The UPA grants the State the right to seek restitution, civil penalties, and injunctive relieffor unfair trade practices.”
Atherton v. Gopin, 2015 NMCA 003 (N.M. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 2× “For more aggravated circumstances — where a person has “willfully used a method, act or practice declared unlawful by the [UPA]” — the Attorney General can seek “a civil penalty of not exceeding five thousand dollars ($5,000) per violation.”
Atherton v. Gopin (N.M. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 2× “” Section 57-12-11. 13 {50} Given the material difference in the available remedies, it is clear that the 14 Legislature contemplated proof of some culpable mental state to demonstrate 15 “willfulness.”
NM Solar Grp. Inc., a New Mexico Corp. (Bankr. D.N.M. 2024).
“§ 57-12-11. In addition to the Attorney General’s right to enforce the UPA, “persons” damaged by unfair or unconscionable practices are given the private remedies of injunctive relief, § 57-12- 10(A), actual damages, § 57-12-10(B), treble damages if the practice was willful, §…”
Nicholas Kadlec & Casey Reid-Kadlec (Bankr. D.N.M. 2024).
“§ 57-12-11. In addition to the Attorney General’s right to enforce the UPA, “persons” damaged by unfair or unconscionable practices are given the private remedies of injunctive relief, § 57-12- 10(A), actual damages, § 57-12-10(B), treble damages if the practice was willful, §…”
Connecticut v. Sandoz, Inc. (D. Conn. 2024).
“367-1 at 42; see N.M. Stat. Ann. § 57-12-11 (“[I]f the court finds that a person is willfully using or has willfully used a method, act or practice declared unlawful by the Unfair Practices Act, the attorney general, upon petition to the court, may recover, on behalf of the…”
Connecticut v. Aurobindo Pharma USA, Inc. (D. Conn. 2025).
“N.M. Stat. Ann. § 57-12-11 . The Defendants next argue that New Mexico’s claims for restitution must also be dismissed because New Mexico has not pleaded “that the funds .”
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.