NM Stat § 47-8-35 (2021)
2021 New Mexico Statutes|Chapter 47 - Property Law|Article 8 - Owner-Resident Relations|Section 47-8-35 - Claim for rent and damages.

If the rental agreement is terminated, the owner is entitled to possession and may have a claim for rent and a separate claim for damages for breach of the rental agreement and reasonable attorney's fees as provided in Subsection C of Section 33 [47-8-33 NMSA 1978] of the Uniform Owner-Resident Relations Act. History: 1953 Comp., § 70-7-35, enacted by Laws 1975, ch. 38, § 35. ANNOTATIONSCompiler's notes. — The reference to Subsection C of 47-8-33 NMSA 1978 was a reference to former Subsection C and should now be a reference to Subsection F following the 1995 amendment to that section. Effective July 1, 1995, attorney's fees are no longer authorized by that section. See 47-8-48 NMSA 1978 for payment of attorney's fees to the prevailing party in a suit brought to enforce the terms and conditions of a rental agreement or the provisions of the Uniform Owner-Resident Relations Act. District court did not err in awarding plaintiff damages for property damage and unpaid rent, but erred in failing to credit defendant for the cost of repairs to the property. — Where the parties entered into a lease option contract pursuant to which plaintiff agreed to lease and defendant agreed to rent a residential property in Vanderwagen, New Mexico for sixty months, and where the lease option contract included an option to purchase the residence at any time during the contract's terms, and where defendant paid plaintiff $10,000, which was not mentioned in the lease option contract but which defendant claimed to be a down payment toward the purchase price of the property, and where defendant stopped making monthly payments on the property after two years, and where plaintiff filed a petition for restitution seeking possession of the property in magistrate court, and where the magistrate court granted the writ of restitution and awarded damages, past-due rent, and attorney fees, and where, on de novo appeal, the district court ruled in plaintiff's favor on all issues and awarded plaintiff back-rent and damages over $10,000, and where defendant argued that plaintiff should have been barred from recovering damages and rent at all because plaintiff retained defendant's initial $10,000 payment and that the district court failed to credit defendant for the full value of the repairs he made to the property during his occupancy, despite evidence that defendant spent $900 repairing faucets and replacing a fuse box on the property, the district court did not err in determining that plaintiff was entitled to damages for past-due rent and property damage because the district court credited defendant with the $10,000 in calculating plaintiff's damages, in effect ruling that plaintiff was not entitled to retain the payment, but the district court erred to the extent that it determined that defendant's evidence was insufficient evidence of other repairs as a matter of law. White v. Farris, 2021-NMCA-014.Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — 49 Am. Jur. 2d Landlord and Tenant § 786 et seq. What constitutes willfulness or malice justifying landlord's collection of statutory multiple damages for tenant's wrongful retention of possession, 7 A.L.R.4th 589. What constitutes tenant's holding over of leased premises, 13 A.L.R.5th 169. 52 C.J.S. Landlord and Tenant § 568.