causes.
Any license issued by the division shall be revoked or suspended by the commission
for any of the following causes:
A. if the licensee or qualifying party of the licensee willfully or by reason of
incompetence violates any provision of the Construction Industries Licensing Act or any
rule or regulation adopted pursuant to that act by the division;
B. knowingly contracting or performing a service beyond the scope of the license;
C. misrepresentation of a material fact by the applicant in obtaining a license;
D. failure to maintain proof of responsibility as required by the Construction
Industries Licensing Act;
E. unjustified abandonment of any contract as determined by a court of competent
jurisdiction;
F. conversion of funds or property received for prosecution or completion of a
specific contract or for a specified purpose in the prosecution or completion of any
contract, obligation or purpose, as determined by a court of competent jurisdiction;
G. departure from or disregard of plans or specifications that result in code
violations;
H. willful or fraudulent commission of any act by the licensee as a contractor in
consequence of which another is substantially injured, as determined by a court of
competent jurisdiction;
I. failure to maintain workers' compensation insurance as required by the Workers'
Compensation Act [Chapter 52, Article 1 NMSA 1978];
J. aiding, abetting, combining or conspiring with a person to evade or violate the
provisions of the Construction Industries Licensing Act by allowing a contractor's license
to be used by an unlicensed person, or acting as agent, partner, associate or otherwise
in connection with an unlicensed person, with the intent to evade the provisions of the
Construction Industries Licensing Act; or
K. acting in the capacity of a licensee under any other name than is set forth upon
the license.
History: 1953 Comp., § 67-35-26, enacted by Laws 1967, ch. 199, § 26; 1977, ch. 245,
§ 185; 1989, ch. 6, § 21; 1993, ch. 193, § 13.
ANNOTATIONS
The 1993 amendment, effective June 18, 1993, made a stylistic change in Subsection
H, inserted present Subsection I, and redesignated the remaining subsections
accordingly.
"Conversion." — Section 60-13-23F NMSA 1978 creates a technical trust within the
meaning of 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(4), and that for purposes of the New Mexico statute,
"conversion," like "diversion," means the failure by the contractor who is entrusted with
funds to be used for a specific project to use the funds for their intended purpose.
Crossingham Trust v. Baines (In re Baines), 337 B.R. 392 (Bankr. D.N.M. 2006).
Notice of contemplated action sufficient. — The notice of contemplated action in this
case was sufficient to provide the licensee with notice, even though it did not state that
the qualifying party certificate was in jeopardy; the licensee knew the general nature of
the proceedings against him and that is all that notice pleading requires. Further, the
licensee waived the lack of notice issue by appearing at the administrative hearing and
defending on the merits. Oden v. State, Regulation & Licensing Dep't, 1996-NMSC-022,
121 N.M. 670, 916 P.2d 1337.
Contractor's fiduciary capacity imposed by law binding on him. — Fiduciary
capacity of contractor who was advanced money pursuant to construction contracts was
imposed by law, rather than implied by law, and existed independent of any express
understanding he had with the owner governing the same obligation. Since obtaining
state license by contractor is prerequisite to entering construction industry in New
Mexico, obligation and duties imposed under this section were binding upon contractor
prior to any dealings he had with the owner, and a bankruptcy court's finding that the
contractor was acting in a fiduciary capacity within the meaning of federal bankruptcy
law, is not clearly erroneous. In re Romero, 535 F.2d 618 (10th Cir. 1976).
This section imposes fiduciary duty upon contractors who have been advanced money
pursuant to construction contracts. In re Romero, 535 F.2d 618 (10th Cir. 1976).
Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — 51 Am. Jur. 2d Licenses and Permits §§
59 to 62; 58 Am. Jur. 2d Occupations, Trades and Professions §§ 8, 9.
Stay, pending review, of judgment or order revoking or suspending a professional, trade
or occupational license, 166 A.L.R. 575.
Bias of members of license revocation board, 97 A.L.R.2d 1210.
53 C.J.S. Licenses §§ 50 to 53.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
12
cases, 1986–2019 · leading case:
State v. Kalinowski, 2020 NMCA 018 (N.M. Ct. App. 2019).
State v. Kalinowski, 2020 NMCA 018 (N.M. Ct. App. 2019).
· cites it 44× “Section 60-13-23, entitled “Revocation or suspension of license by the commission; causes,” lists the circumstances under which the Construction Industries Division will revoke a contractor’s license.”
Crossingham Trust v. Baines (In Re Baines), 337 B.R. 392 (Bankr. D.N.M. 2006).
· cites it 6× “1978 § 60-13-23(A) (Repl.Pam.1997). It is undisputed that Building Unlimited is the licensee and Defendant Robert Baines is the qualifying party for the licensee.”
Tafoya v. Rael, 193 P.3d 551 (N.M. 2008).
· cites it 4× “Section 60-13-23 subjects those licensed contractors who intentionally evade the requirements of the CILA by working in connection with unlicensed persons to suspension or revocation of their license.”
Hawks Holdings, LLC v. Kalinowski (In Re Kalinowski), 449 B.R. 797 (Bankr. D.N.M. 2011).
· cites it 10× “33); Defendant’s [William Kalinowski’s] Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Defendant's Response to Plaintiffs Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and in Support of Defendant’s Counter-Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, pp.”
Reule Sun Corp. v. Valles, 226 P.3d 611 (N.M. 2009).
“icensed contractor for work specified in the Act, and (2) bidding on a contract); § 60-13-14(B)(8) (requiring an applicant for a license to “have had four years, within the ten years immediately prior to application, of practical or related trade experience dealing specifically…”
Oden v. State, Reg. & Licensing Dept., 916 P.2d 1337 (N.M. 1996).
· cites it 2× “At the administrative hearing, both Oden’s contractor’s license and his qualifying party certificate were revoked. Oden argued that CID’s notice violated his due process rights because it apprised him only that his contractor’s license was in jeopardy under Section 60-13-23, and…”
Hawks Holdings, LLC v. Kalinowski (In re Kalinowski), 482 B.R. 334 (10th Cir. BAP 2012).
“But the Act defines a "contractor” as “any person who undertakes, offers to undertake by bid or other means or purports to have the capacity to undertake, by himself or through others, contracting " (emphasis added).”
Shade v. State, 509 A.2d 664 (Md. 1986).
“1 (1986) ("[ajbandonment without legal excuse of any construction project or operation engaged in or undertaken by the licensee as a contractor”); N.M.Stat.Ann. § 60-13-23 F. (1978, 1984 Repl.”
Grove v. Beaver (In Re Beaver), 454 B.R. 184 (Bankr. D.N.M. 2011).
· cites it 2× “NMSA § 60-13-23. These grounds, other than subsection (F), appear to not involve any transfers of funds.”
S & H Dev. LLC v. Parker (N.M. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 5× “See §§ 60-13-23, -30, -52. We see no legislative intent to 18 afford relief beyond those measures under the circumstances in this case.”
Preferred Builders v. Ghaffari (N.M. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 4× “” We recognize that CILA prohibits a general contractor from “acting 11 in the capacity of a licensee under any other name than is set forth upon the license.”
— N.M. Stat. § 60-13-23(A) — 2 cases
Crossingham Trust v. Baines (In Re Baines), 337 B.R. 392 (Bankr. D.N.M. 2006).
“1978 § 60-13-23(A) (Repl.Pam.1997). It is undisputed that Building Unlimited is the licensee and Defendant Robert Baines is the qualifying party for the licensee.”
Hawks Holdings, LLC v. Kalinowski (In Re Kalinowski), 449 B.R. 797 (Bankr. D.N.M. 2011).
“33); Defendant’s [William Kalinowski’s] Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Defendant's Response to Plaintiffs Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and in Support of Defendant’s Counter-Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, pp.”
— N.M. Stat. § 60-13-23(F) — 4 cases
State v. Kalinowski, 2020 NMCA 018 (N.M. Ct. App. 2019).
“Section 60-13-23, entitled “Revocation or suspension of license by the commission; causes,” lists the circumstances under which the Construction Industries Division will revoke a contractor’s license.”
Crossingham Trust v. Baines (In Re Baines), 337 B.R. 392 (Bankr. D.N.M. 2006).
“1978 § 60-13-23(A) (Repl.Pam.1997). It is undisputed that Building Unlimited is the licensee and Defendant Robert Baines is the qualifying party for the licensee.”
Hawks Holdings, LLC v. Kalinowski (In Re Kalinowski), 449 B.R. 797 (Bankr. D.N.M. 2011).
“33); Defendant’s [William Kalinowski’s] Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Defendant's Response to Plaintiffs Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and in Support of Defendant’s Counter-Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, pp.”
— N.M. Stat. § 60-13-23(J) — 2 cases
Tafoya v. Rael, 193 P.3d 551 (N.M. 2008).
“Section 60-13-23 subjects those licensed contractors who intentionally evade the requirements of the CILA by working in connection with unlicensed persons to suspension or revocation of their license.”
S & H Dev. LLC v. Parker (N.M. Ct. App. 2017).
“See §§ 60-13-23, -30, -52. We see no legislative intent to 18 afford relief beyond those measures under the circumstances in this case.”
— N.M. Stat. § 60-13-23(K) — 1 case
Preferred Builders v. Ghaffari (N.M. Ct. App. 2011).
“” We recognize that CILA prohibits a general contractor from “acting 11 in the capacity of a licensee under any other name than is set forth upon the license.”
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.