Section 1. Faith and Credit among States.

Adoption.

Attorney fees.

Construction with other law.

Contracts.

Divorce.

Due process.

Foreign decrees.

Indian Law.

Judgment.

Jurisdiction.

Support.

Time limitations.

Workers’ compensation.

Although an adoption at issue would not have been permissible in New Mexico due to the provisions of former 22-2-13, 1953 Comp., and the adoption would have offended the public policy in New Mexico as reflected in former 29-1-17, 22-2-19, 31-16-1, 31-16-2, 1953 Comp., because the adoption took place in Colorado and was validated by a judgment of a Colorado court, based on U.S. Const. art IV § 1 the courts of New Mexico had to give it full faith and credit. Thus, the adopted child was the lawful child and heir under the terms of a decedent’s will. Delaney v. First Nat'l Bank, 1963-NMSC-160, 73 N.M. 192, 386 P.2d 711, 1963 N.M. LEXIS 2059 (N.M. 1963).

Neither the Full Faith and Credit clause, U.S. Const. art IV § 1, nor the Due Process clause were violated in certifying plaintiff’s breach of contract action against an insurer as a class action because the district court did not err in its assessment that breach of contract law was uniform enough that the traditional notions of fair play and justice would not be offended by litigating the issue under New Mexico law in that there was no significant variation in the cases from the standard approach to interpretation of insurance contracts. Berry v. Fed. Kemper Life Assur. Co., 2004-NMCA-116, 136 N.M. 454, 99 P.3d 1166, 2004 N.M. App. LEXIS 101 (N.M. Ct. App. 2004), cert. denied, 100 P.3d 672, 2004 N.M. LEXIS 410 (N.M. 2004), cert. denied, 544 U.S. 920, 125 S. Ct. 1640, 161 L. Ed. 2d 477, 2005 U.S. LEXIS 2463 (U.S. 2005), overruled in part, Ferrell v. Allstate Ins. Co., 2007-NMCA-017, 141 N.M. 72, 150 P.3d 1022, 2006 N.M. App. LEXIS 169 (N.M. Ct. App. 2006).

In a foreign judgment creditor’s action to domesticate a default judgment for payment under the automatic renewal provision of a contract, the trial court erred in refusing to grant the foreign judgment full faith and credit under U.S. Const. art IV § 1, where the case was tried in the proper forum even if the contract’s terms shocked the conscience. American Inst. of Mktg. Sys. v. Don Rhoades Corp., 1971-NMSC-060, 82 N.M. 659, 486 P.2d 68, 1971 N.M. LEXIS 1564 (N.M.), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 882, 92 S. Ct. 210, 30 L. Ed. 2d 163, 1971 U.S. LEXIS 797 (U.S. 1971).

Although cognovit provisions of a promissory note were void under New Mexico law, the trial court could nonetheless enforce a judgment obtained under Colorado law where the promissory note was executed in New Mexico and made payable in Colorado in connection with a contract made and performed in Colorado; the Colorado court had jurisdiction over the debtors in the action upon the promissory note and full faith and credit dictated that the judgment be recognized in New Mexico. Mountain States Fixture Co. v. Daskalos, 1956-NMSC-109, 61 N.M. 491, 303 P.2d 698, 1956 N.M. LEXIS 1124 (N.M. 1956).

Divorce decree that a husband obtained in Mexico lacked res judicata effect as to a divorce action that a wife filed in New Mexico; the husband’s testimony showed that he did not, and had no intent to, establish residency in Mexico and precedent showed that the Full Faith and Credit Clause in U.S. Const. art IV § 1 did not apply to judgments that were issued in foreign countries and that there was no treaty between the United States and Mexico that required recognizing the divorce that the husband obtained there. Lorenzo v. Lorenzo, 1973-NMSC-062, 85 N.M. 305, 512 P.2d 65, 1973 N.M. LEXIS 1260 (N.M. 1973).

Application of former 13-13-1, 1953 Comp. (now 28-6-1 NMSA 1978) did not affect former wife’s rights under an original divorce decree in violation of N.M. Const. art IV  § 34 because the original decree was considered final and entitled to full faith and credit under U.S. Const. art IV § 1; thus, the wife’s case was not a “pending case” with the meaning of N.M. Const. art IV  § 34. Phelps v. Phelps, 1973-NMSC-044, 85 N.M. 62, 509 P.2d 254, 1973 N.M. LEXIS 1240 (N.M. 1973).

Bank was entitled to domesticate and foreclose upon a foreign judgment, which was against a husband only, by a judicially ordered sale of community real property, even though the wife did not agree to the underlying debt or was not a judgment debtor. New Mexico, under the full faith and credit clause of U.S. Const. art IV § 1, was obligated to enforce the out-of-state judgment, as though it had been rendered by a New Mexico trial court. Huntington Nat'l Bank v. Sproul, 1993-NMSC-051, 116 N.M. 254, 861 P.2d 935, 1993 N.M. LEXIS 303 (N.M. 1993).

New Mexico Foreign Judgments Act, 39-4A-1 NMSA 1978 et seq., does not diminish the finality of a foreign adjudication and does not change the universal rule that foreign judgments are entitled to full faith and credit; consequently, a New Mexico court could not apply Rule 1-060 NMRA to a foreign judgment in the same manner as the rule was applied to judgments of the New Mexico courts, and the merits of the foreign judgment could not be collaterally attacked. Jordan v. Hall, 1993-NMCA-061, 115 N.M. 775, 858 P.2d 863, 1993 N.M. App. LEXIS 68 (N.M. Ct. App. 1993).

Where parties had been granted a divorce decree in the Dominican Republic, a New Mexico court did not have to recognize the decree under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of U.S. Const. art IV § 1 but could possibly do so under the principals of comity. Watson v. Blakely, 1987-NMCA-147, 106 N.M. 687, 748 P.2d 984, 1987 N.M. App. LEXIS 806 (N.M. Ct. App. 1987), overruled,  Kelly Inn No. 102 v. Kapnison, 1992-NMSC-005, 113 N.M. 231, 824 P.2d 1033, 1992 N.M. LEXIS 35 (N.M. 1992).

Trial court erroneously ruled against plaintiff former wife that the doctrine of laches applied to prevent her collection of accrued alimony payments because the original decree was granted under controlling California statutory and case law, and under the law of full faith and credit, U.S. Const. art IV § 1, California law was required to be applied by a New Mexico court to settle a substantive right; the court determined that since California’s courts were powerless to cancel the past due alimony payments, a New Mexico court likewise had no power to act. Cain v. Cain, 1978-NMSC-014, 91 N.M. 423, 575 P.2d 607, 1978 N.M. LEXIS 903 (N.M. 1978).

Full faith and credit, as required by U.S. Const. art IV § 1, was properly given to plaintiff’s action of debt on a Kansas judgment, because the Kansas transcript was authenticated as required by congressional enactment, 1 Stat. 122 (1790), and because claims of deficiency in the Kansas judgment should have been directed to the Kansas appellate courts rather than to a New Mexico appeals court. Stewart v. Maxwell, 1873-NMSC-006, 1 N.M. 563, 1873 N.M. LEXIS 6 (N.M. 1873), aff'd, 88 U.S. 71, 22 L. Ed. 564, 1874 U.S. LEXIS 1342 (U.S. 1875), aff'd, 89 U.S. 77, 22 L. Ed. 564, 1874 U.S. LEXIS 1251 (U.S. 1875).

Indian Tribal Law is not entitled to full faith and credit under U.S. Const. art IV § 1 because Indian Nations are not territories. Jim v. CIT Fin. Servs. Corp., 1974-NMCA-115, 86 N.M. 784, 527 P.2d 1222, 1974 N.M. App. LEXIS 737 (N.M. Ct. App. 1974).

Under the full faith and credit clause, U.S. Const. art IV § 1, an out-of-state judgment is enforceable in another state unless the judgment is void and entitled to no standing in the state in which it was rendered. Houston Fire & Casualty Ins. Co. v. Falls, 1960-NMSC-065, 67 N.M. 189, 354 P.2d 127, 1960 N.M. LEXIS 1170 (N.M. 1960).

Issue preclusion and the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the U.S. Const. art IV § 1 did not allow the ex-husband to collaterally attack an Oklahoma divorce judgment in New Mexico for alleged lack of personal jurisdiction in Oklahoma where the husband had made special appearances in the Oklahoma proceedings, and were the ex-husband never to have appeared in Oklahoma, he could have raised lack of personal jurisdiction in Oklahoma as a defense to the ex-wife’s enforcement action in New Mexico. Thoma v. Thoma, 1997-NMCA-016, 123 N.M. 137, 934 P.2d 1066, 1996 N.M. App. LEXIS 108 (N.M. Ct. App. 1996).

Ex parte divorce decree that a wife obtained in Indiana was entitled to full faith and credit in a husband’s New Mexico action against the wife that sought a dissolution of their marriage and a division of their property, because there was no requirement that long-arm statutes be codified and the Indiana rule afforded due process of law pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment so long as there was a showing of the minimum contacts and the notice that the Indiana rule required; further, a ruling of the Indiana Supreme Court that implicitly validated the rule was entitled to full faith and credit pursuant to U.S. Const. art IV § 1 because of the showing of adequate minimum contacts and notice in that action. Barker v. Barker, 1980-NMSC-024, 94 N.M. 162, 608 P.2d 138, 1980 N.M. LEXIS 2649 (N.M. 1980).

In a former wife’s action to collect an arrearage in alimony and support payments under a California divorce judgment brought under the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Acts of New Mexico and California, the New Mexico district court properly denied the husband’s request for a modification because the California judgment was final and non-modifiable under California law and entitled to full faith and credit in New Mexico under U.S. Const. art IV § 1. Lumpkins v. Lumpkins, 1972-NMSC-015, 83 N.M. 591, 495 P.2d 371, 1972 N.M. LEXIS 853 (N.M. 1972).

Where a former husband failed to bring an action seeking to claim an offset for wrongfully detained property within three years of a California judgment, Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 338(3), and within four years in New Mexico, former 23-1-4, 1953 Comp. (now 37-1-4 NMSA 1978), he was barred from so pleading the cause of action as a defense; the California judgment was a final, non-modifiable judgment under California law and was entitled to full faith and credit under U.S. Const. art IV § 1. Lumpkins v. Lumpkins, 1972-NMSC-015, 83 N.M. 591, 495 P.2d 371, 1972 N.M. LEXIS 853 (N.M. 1972).

Under U.S. Const. art IV § 1, there are several factors that would give rise to an interest sufficient for a state to assert jurisdiction over a workers’ compensation claim without violating the duty to give full faith and credit to the law of the other states also having an interest in the injury, and include: (1) where the injury occurred, (2) where the employment contract was formed, (3) where the employment occurred, (4) where the industry was localized, (5) where the workers resided, and (6) which state’s statute the parties have expressly adopted by contract. Hammonds v. Freymiller Trucking, 1993-NMCA-030, 115 N.M. 364, 851 P.2d 486, 1993 N.M. App. LEXIS 21 (N.M. Ct. App. 1993).

Where a worker’s contract of hire was not made in New Mexico, the worker did not meet the extraterritorial coverage requirements of the New Mexico Workers’ Compensation Act [52-1-1 NMSA 1978]; a trial court did not fail to give full faith and credit to a Nevada agency’s adjudication that the worker was not entitled to benefits under Nevada law. Orcutt v. S & L Paint Contractors, 1990-NMCA-036, 109 N.M. 796, 791 P.2d 71, 1990 N.M. App. LEXIS 24 (N.M. Ct. App. 1990).