N.M. Stat. § 61-18A-26 (2026)

Nothing in the Collection Agency Regulatory Act shall be construed to prevent
collection agencies from taking assignments of claims in their own name as real parties
in interest for the purpose of billing and collection and bringing suit in their own names;
provided that no suit allowed by this section may be instituted on behalf of a collection
agency in a court unless the collection agency appears by a duly authorized and
licensed attorney-at-law.

History: Laws 1987, ch. 252, § 26; 2021, ch. 31, § 13.

                                     ANNOTATIONS

The 2021 amendment, effective July 1, 2021, removed a provision authorizing a court,
in its discretion, to order payment of attorney fees and costs to the prevailing party in
certain debt collection lawsuits; and deleted "In such a suit, the court may, in its
discretion, authorize payment of reasonable attorney fees and costs to the prevailing
party.".
Pro forma assignments. — This section does not authorize the practice of taking the
assignment of debts from an underlying creditor on a contingency fee basis and the
filing of a suit by the collection agency's own attorneys in the collection agency's own
name. Kolker v. Duke City Collection Agency, 750 F. Supp. 468 (D.N.M. 1990).

Practice of law not authorized. — This section cannot authorize collection agencies to
practice law by bringing suits on nominally assigned claims in state court, since the
regulation of the practice of law is an exclusive prerogative of the New Mexico Supreme
Court. Martinez v. Albuquerque Collection Servs., Inc., 867 F. Supp. 1495 (D.N.M.
1994).