N.M. Stat. » Chapter 57 — Trade Practices and Regulations
New Mexico Statutes

N.M. Stat. § 57-12-6 (2026)

Misrepresentation of motor vehicles; penalty

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NM-LEGnmonesource.com JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A. The willful misrepresentation of the age or condition of a motor vehicle by any person, including regrooving tires or performing chassis repair, without informing the purchaser of the vehicle that the regrooving or chassis repair has been performed, is an unlawful practice within the meaning of the Unfair Practices Act, unless the alleged misrepresentation is based wholly on repair of damage, the disclosure of which was not required pursuant to Subsection C of this section. The failure to provide an affidavit pursuant to Subsection B of this section when there has been repair for which disclosure is required shall constitute prima facie evidence of willful misrepresentation.

B. Except as provided in Subsections C and D of this section, a seller of a motor vehicle shall furnish at the time of sale of a motor vehicle an affidavit that:

(1) describes the vehicle; and

(2) states to the best of the seller's knowledge whether there has been an alteration or chassis repair due to wreck damage.

C. No affidavit shall be required pursuant to this section if the flat rate manual cost of the alteration or chassis repair is less than six percent of the sales price of the vehicle.

D. In the case of a private-party sale of a vehicle, an affidavit shall be furnished only upon the request of the purchasing party.

E. Notwithstanding the provisions of Subsection D of Section 57-12-10 NMSA 1978, the award of three times actual damages as provided for in that section shall be in lieu of any award of punitive damages based only on those facts constituting the unfair or deceptive trade practice or unconscionable trade practice.

F. Any person who violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor.

History: 1953 Comp., § 49-15-5.1(B), enacted by Laws 1971, ch. 274, § 1, and recompiled as 1953 Comp., § 49-15-5.1 by Laws 1977, ch. 181, § 4; 1981, ch. 361, § 1; 1991, ch. 232, § 1; 1995, ch. 10, § 1.

ANNOTATIONS

The 1995 amendment, effective June 16, 1995, substituted "Subsections C and D of this section" for "this subsection" in the introductory paragraph of Subsection B; in Subsection C, substituted the language beginning "the flat rate manual" for "the vehicle is a new vehicle and the cost of the alteration or chassis repair is less than three hundred dollars ($300)" and deleted the former second sentence, defining "new vehicle"; and deleted "to another private party" following "vehicle" and "private" following "purchasing" in Subsection D.

The 1991 amendment, effective June 14, 1991, in Subsection A, added the language beginning with "unless the alleged misrepresentation" at the end of the first sentence and added the second sentence; added Subsections C and E; redesignated Subsection C as Subsection D and Subsection D as Subsection F; and made a minor stylistic change in Subsection B.

An affidavit is required to ensure that sellers disclose the age or condition of a motor vehicle and to provide evidence to that effect. — Where the parties brought claims against each other arising from the sale of a used car, and where, prior to trial, the district court granted partial summary judgment to plaintiff on a claim arising under the Unfair Practices Act (UPA), 57-12-1 to 57-12-26 NMSA 1978, that defendant willfully misrepresented the age or condition of the used vehicle, and where, after the parties presented evidence at trial, the district court granted plaintiff's motion for judgment as a matter of law on defendant's counterclaim for breach of contract and the jury found for defendant on plaintiff's other UPA claims, but awarded no damages, the district court did not err in granting partial summary judgment to plaintiff on the claim that defendant failed to disclose the age or condition of the motor vehicle, because under 57-12-6 NMSA 1978, the undisputed material facts showed that an affidavit from the dealer as to the age and condition of the car was required, and because plaintiff did not receive an affidavit from defendant as to whether there had been an alteration or chassis repair due to wreck damage, plaintiff established as a matter of law that defendant violated 57- 12-6 NMSA 1978. Hernandez v. Outwest Auto Corral, LLC, 2025-NMCA-001, cert. denied.

Judgment as a matter of law was proper where defendant failed to present evidence of damages for breach of contract. — Where the parties brought claims against each other arising from the sale of a used car, and where, prior to trial, the district court granted partial summary judgment to plaintiff on a claim arising under the Unfair Practices Act (UPA), 57-12-1 to 57-12-26 NMSA 1978, that defendant willfully misrepresented the age or condition of the used vehicle, and where, after the parties presented evidence at trial, the district court granted plaintiff's motion for judgment as a matter of law on defendant's counterclaim for breach of contract and the jury found for defendant on plaintiff's other UPA claims, but awarded no damages, the district court did not err in granting plaintiff's motion for judgment as a matter of law on defendant's breach of contract claim, because defendant admitted at trial that plaintiff did not owe anything on the vehicle and defendant presented no evidence to the jury to support an award of attorney fees and costs as damages for breach of contract. Hernandez v. Outwest Auto Corral, LLC, 2025-NMCA-001, cert. denied.

Defendant's counterclaim for malicious abuse of process was legally insufficient and properly dismissed. — Where the parties brought claims against each other arising from the sale of a used car, and where, prior to trial, the district court dismissed defendant's counterclaim for malicious abuse of process and granted partial summary judgment to plaintiff on a claim arising under the Unfair Practices Act (UPA), 57-12-1 to 57-12-26 NMSA 1978, that defendant willfully misrepresented the age or condition of the used vehicle, and where, after the parties presented evidence at trial, the district court granted plaintiff's motion for judgment as a matter of law on defendant's counterclaim for breach of contract and the jury found for defendant on plaintiff's other UPA claims, but awarded no damages, the district court did not err in dismissing defendant's malicious abuse of process claim, because the claim did not establish that plaintiff had no factual basis for the 57-12-6 NMSA 1978 claim or that plaintiff had no reasonable belief in the validity of the allegations of fact or law underlying the claim. Hernandez v. Outwest Auto Corral, LLC, 2025-NMCA-001, cert. denied.

"Altered" construed. — Within the context of Subsection B, goods are "altered" if, as measured against the reasonable expectations of the consumer, the characteristics or value of the motor vehicle are affected in a meaningful way. Hale v. Basin Motor Co., 1990-NMSC-068, 110 N.M. 314, 795 P.2d 1006.

"Due to wreck damage" construed. — The phrase "due to wreck damage" in Subsection B(2) modifies only "chassis repair" and not "alteration." Hale v. Basin Motor Co., 1990-NMSC-068, 110 N.M. 314, 795 P.2d 1006.

Alteration found. — Evidence showing that right front fender was replaced, right door frame was straightened, holes were drilled in the door panel to pull out a dent, sheet metal in the damaged area was ground down and resurfaced with body filler, and the damaged area was repainted was sufficient to support finding that vehicle was altered within the meaning of Subsection B. Hale v. Basin Motor Co., 1990-NMSC-068, 110 N.M. 314, 795 P.2d 1006.

Arbitration agreement that barred punitive damages did not constitute an unconscionable contract term. — Where plaintiff purchased a 2018 chevrolet vehicle from defendants, and in the process of purchasing the vehicle, plaintiff signed an order agreement and bill of sale, which contained an arbitration provision and a damages limitation provision stating that the dealer was not liable for punitive damages arising out of the sale or use of the vehicle, and where plaintiff filed a complaint in district court, alleging that in the process of purchasing the vehicle, the dealership failed to accurately convey the car's prior damage in order to sell a defective product, and where defendants moved to compel arbitration under the agreement, and where plaintiff opposed the motion, arguing that the arbitration agreement should not be enforced because the contract was unconscionable, primarily because the punitive damages limitation provision restricts access to statutorily mandated treble damages under the Unfair Practice Act provided by the legislature, the district court did not err in its determination that the contract and the arbitration provision must be enforced, because although the damages provision was facially one-sided in that it disclaimed any punitive damages against the car dealer only, the contract was not unconscionable because the only damages the provision at issue excluded were common law punitive damages not granted by the legislature, leaving the statutory treble damages available to plaintiff. Rojas v. Reliable Chevrolet (NM), LLC, 2024-NMCA-003. Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — Liability on implied warranties in sale of used motor vehicle, 47 A.L.R.5th 677.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1984–2024 · leading case: Hale v. Basin Motor Co., 795 P.2d 1006 (N.M. 1990).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Hale v. Basin Motor Co., 795 P.2d 1006 (N.M. 1990). · cites it 44× “Specifically, they claimed that Basin Motor willfully misrepresented the condition of the car and failed to provide them with an affidavit describing the damage to the car as required by Section 57-12-6. Under their fraud claim they alleged that, with *1009 the intent to deceive…”
Two Old Hippies, LLC v. Catch the Bus, LLC, 807 F. Supp. 2d 1059 (D.N.M. 2011). · cites it 4× “The Court therefore takes as true that allegation in the Complaint that Two Old Hippies willfully misrepresented the condition of the buses, see Complaint ¶ 49, at 5 (“The CTB Defendants violated NMSA § 57-12-6 by willfully misrepresenting the condition of buses.”
Hernandez v. Outwest Auto Corral, LLC (N.M. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 117× “{16} While the current Section 57-12-6(C) excuses an affidavit “if the flat rate manual cost of the alteration or chassis repair is less than six percent of the sales price of the vehicle,” see § 57-12-6, that language was not included in the statute at the time Hale was…”
Hernandez v. Outwest Auto Corral, LLC (N.M. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 103× “18 {16} While the current Section 57-12-6(C) excuses an affidavit “if the flat rate 19 manual cost of the alteration or chassis repair is less than six percent of the sales 20 price of the vehicle,” see § 57-12-6, that language was not included in the statute at 11 1 the time…”
McAlpine v. Zangara Dodge, Inc., 183 P.3d 975 (N.M. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 2× “Great American also contends that there is no dispute that the repairs made to the truck by Mountain Shadow were less than the statutory minimum dollar amount set in NMSA1978, § 57-12-6(C) (1995), and that under the statute, Mountain Shadow was not required to disclose those…”
Richardson Ford Sales, Inc. v. Johnson, 676 P.2d 1344 (N.M. Ct. App. 1984). ““You cannot spend that much money [cost of body repair and mechanical repair] on one and expect it to be retailed to the public and have a happy customer.”
Rojas v. Reliable Chevrolet (NM) (N.M. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 3× “11 Section 57-12-6(E). 12 {14} Plaintiff argues that the contract term prohibiting the award of “punitive 13 damages” prohibits an arbitrator or a court from awarding statutory treble damages 14 granted by the Legislature in the UPA.”
Rojas v. Reliable Chevrolet (NM), LLC (N.M. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 3× “Section 57-12-6(E). {14} Plaintiff argues that the contract term prohibiting the award of “punitive damages” prohibits an arbitrator or a court from awarding statutory treble damages granted by the Legislature in the UPA.”
— N.M. Stat. § 57-12-6(A) — 2 cases
Hernandez v. Outwest Auto Corral, LLC (N.M. Ct. App. 2024). “{16} While the current Section 57-12-6(C) excuses an affidavit “if the flat rate manual cost of the alteration or chassis repair is less than six percent of the sales price of the vehicle,” see § 57-12-6, that language was not included in the statute at the time Hale was…”
Hernandez v. Outwest Auto Corral, LLC (N.M. Ct. App. 2024). “18 {16} While the current Section 57-12-6(C) excuses an affidavit “if the flat rate 19 manual cost of the alteration or chassis repair is less than six percent of the sales 20 price of the vehicle,” see § 57-12-6, that language was not included in the statute at 11 1 the time…”
— N.M. Stat. § 57-12-6(B) — 3 cases
Hale v. Basin Motor Co., 795 P.2d 1006 (N.M. 1990). “Specifically, they claimed that Basin Motor willfully misrepresented the condition of the car and failed to provide them with an affidavit describing the damage to the car as required by Section 57-12-6. Under their fraud claim they alleged that, with *1009 the intent to deceive…”
Hernandez v. Outwest Auto Corral, LLC (N.M. Ct. App. 2024). “{16} While the current Section 57-12-6(C) excuses an affidavit “if the flat rate manual cost of the alteration or chassis repair is less than six percent of the sales price of the vehicle,” see § 57-12-6, that language was not included in the statute at the time Hale was…”
Hernandez v. Outwest Auto Corral, LLC (N.M. Ct. App. 2024). “18 {16} While the current Section 57-12-6(C) excuses an affidavit “if the flat rate 19 manual cost of the alteration or chassis repair is less than six percent of the sales 20 price of the vehicle,” see § 57-12-6, that language was not included in the statute at 11 1 the time…”
— N.M. Stat. § 57-12-6(B)(2) — 2 cases
Hernandez v. Outwest Auto Corral, LLC (N.M. Ct. App. 2024). “{16} While the current Section 57-12-6(C) excuses an affidavit “if the flat rate manual cost of the alteration or chassis repair is less than six percent of the sales price of the vehicle,” see § 57-12-6, that language was not included in the statute at the time Hale was…”
Hernandez v. Outwest Auto Corral, LLC (N.M. Ct. App. 2024). “18 {16} While the current Section 57-12-6(C) excuses an affidavit “if the flat rate 19 manual cost of the alteration or chassis repair is less than six percent of the sales 20 price of the vehicle,” see § 57-12-6, that language was not included in the statute at 11 1 the time…”
— N.M. Stat. § 57-12-6(C) — 4 cases
Hale v. Basin Motor Co., 795 P.2d 1006 (N.M. 1990). “Specifically, they claimed that Basin Motor willfully misrepresented the condition of the car and failed to provide them with an affidavit describing the damage to the car as required by Section 57-12-6. Under their fraud claim they alleged that, with *1009 the intent to deceive…”
McAlpine v. Zangara Dodge, Inc., 183 P.3d 975 (N.M. Ct. App. 2008). “Great American also contends that there is no dispute that the repairs made to the truck by Mountain Shadow were less than the statutory minimum dollar amount set in NMSA1978, § 57-12-6(C) (1995), and that under the statute, Mountain Shadow was not required to disclose those…”
Hernandez v. Outwest Auto Corral, LLC (N.M. Ct. App. 2024). “18 {16} While the current Section 57-12-6(C) excuses an affidavit “if the flat rate 19 manual cost of the alteration or chassis repair is less than six percent of the sales 20 price of the vehicle,” see § 57-12-6, that language was not included in the statute at 11 1 the time…”
Hernandez v. Outwest Auto Corral, LLC (N.M. Ct. App. 2024). “{16} While the current Section 57-12-6(C) excuses an affidavit “if the flat rate manual cost of the alteration or chassis repair is less than six percent of the sales price of the vehicle,” see § 57-12-6, that language was not included in the statute at the time Hale was…”
— N.M. Stat. § 57-12-6(D) — 2 cases
Hernandez v. Outwest Auto Corral, LLC (N.M. Ct. App. 2024). “18 {16} While the current Section 57-12-6(C) excuses an affidavit “if the flat rate 19 manual cost of the alteration or chassis repair is less than six percent of the sales 20 price of the vehicle,” see § 57-12-6, that language was not included in the statute at 11 1 the time…”
Hernandez v. Outwest Auto Corral, LLC (N.M. Ct. App. 2024). “{16} While the current Section 57-12-6(C) excuses an affidavit “if the flat rate manual cost of the alteration or chassis repair is less than six percent of the sales price of the vehicle,” see § 57-12-6, that language was not included in the statute at the time Hale was…”
— N.M. Stat. § 57-12-6(E) — 2 cases
Rojas v. Reliable Chevrolet (NM) (N.M. Ct. App. 2023). “11 Section 57-12-6(E). 12 {14} Plaintiff argues that the contract term prohibiting the award of “punitive 13 damages” prohibits an arbitrator or a court from awarding statutory treble damages 14 granted by the Legislature in the UPA.”
Rojas v. Reliable Chevrolet (NM), LLC (N.M. Ct. App. 2023). “Section 57-12-6(E). {14} Plaintiff argues that the contract term prohibiting the award of “punitive damages” prohibits an arbitrator or a court from awarding statutory treble damages granted by the Legislature in the UPA.”
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.