New Mexico Statutes

N.M. Stat. § 57-28-1 (2026)

Short title

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NM-LEGnmonesource.com JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Chapter 57, Article 28 NMSA 1978 may be cited as the "Prompt Payment Act".

History: Laws 2001, ch. 68, § 1; 2007, ch. 213, § 1.

ANNOTATIONS

The 2007 amendment, effective June 15, 2007, changed the title of the act from the "Retainage Act" to the "Prompt Payment Act" and the statutory reference to the act.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 8 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2007–2023 · leading case: J.R. Hale Contracting Co. v. Union Pac. R.R., 179 P.3d 579 (N.M. Ct. App. 2007).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

J.R. Hale Contracting Co. v. Union Pac. R.R., 179 P.3d 579 (N.M. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 4× “Hale, too, moved for partial summary judgment, seeking withheld retainage, as well as an interest penalty and attorney fees under the Retain-age Act, NMSA 1978, §§ 57-28-1 to -11 (2001, as amended through 2007) (currently known as the Prompt Payment Act).”

Unified Contractor, Inc. v. Albuquerque Hous. Auth., 2017 NMCA 60 (N.M. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 2× “NMSA 1978, §§ 57-28-1 to -11 (2001, as amended through 2007).”

Presidential Hosp., LLC v. Wyndham Hotel Grp., LLC, 333 F. Supp. 3d 1179 (D.N.M. 2018). · cites it 2× “They argue that N.M. Stat. Ann. § 57-28-1 (A) voids provisions that " require [ ] any litigation arising from the construction contract to be conducted in another state," but the Franchise Agreement's and Assignment Agreement's provisions do not require that litigation be…”

White Sands Constr., Inc. v. City of Las Cruces (N.M. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 3× “3 {1} This appeal involves contract interpretation in the context of the Prompt 4 Payment Act (PPA), see NMSA 1978, §§57-28-1 to -11 (2001, as amended through 5 2007).”

White Sands Constr. v. City of Las Cruces (N.M. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 3× “{1} This appeal involves contract interpretation in the context of the Prompt Payment Act (PPA), see NMSA 1978, §§57-28-1 to -11 (2001, as amended through 2007).”

Chaparral Materials, Inc. v. Ramos (In Re Ramos), 442 B.R. 37 (Bankr. D.N.M. 2010). · cites it 4× “§ 523 (a)(4) by virtue of a technical trust imposed by the Prompt Payment Act, § 57-28-1, et seq., NMSA 1978. Mr. Ramos counters that the Prompt Payment Act does not impose a technical trust for the benefit of suppliers with respect to funds held by subcontractors, so that he is…”

Unified Contractor, Inc. v. Albuquerque Hous. Auth. (N.M. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 2× “NMSA 1978, §§ 57-28-1 to -11 (2001, as amended through 11 2007).”

Ashcraft v. Makwa Builders (N.M. Ct. App. 2019). “Having not received payment from Makwa for the December payment application, Ashcraft sued Makwa and Great American for breach of contract, violations of the Prompt Payment Act (PPA), NMSA 1978, Sections 57-28-1 to -11 (2001, as amended through 2007), and the Little Miller Act,…”

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.