A. Except as otherwise provided by law, the transferee before operating or permitting the operation of the vehicle or boat on a highway or waterway shall present to the division the certificate of registration and the properly assigned certificate of title and shall apply for and obtain a new certificate of title and a new registration for the vehicle.

B. A transferee who fails to apply for transfer of registration and issuance of a new certificate of title within thirty days from the date of transfer is guilty of a penalty assessment misdemeanor.

History: 1953 Comp., § 64-3-103, enacted by Laws 1978, ch. 35, § 50; 1989, ch. 318, § 8; 2018, ch. 74, § 9.

Cross references. — For horseless carriage registration, see 66-3-27 NMSA 1978.

The 2018 amendment, effective July 1, 2018, made the failure to comply with the provisions of this section within thirty days from the date of transfer a penalty assessment misdemeanor; and in Subsection B, deleted "Failure" and added "A transferee who fails", after "the date of transfer", deleted "subjects the transferee to a penalty of twenty dollars ($20.00). The penalty shall be collected by the division and shall be in addition to other fees and penalties provided by law" and added "is guilty of a penalty assessment misdemeanor".

The 1989 amendment, effective July 1, 1989, substituted "the vehicle or boat on a highway or waterway" for "such vehicle on a highway" in Subsection A, and made minor stylistic changes throughout the section.

Title provisions not to be interpreted as providing exclusive method for transferring title. This conclusion is strongly supported by the provision of 64-3-10, 1953 Comp. (similar to 66-3-12 NMSA 1978) that the certificate of title is prima facie evidence of ownership. Such language clearly indicates an intention that the certificate of title is only evidence of ownership and that the same may be shown by other proof. Schall v. Mondragon, 1964-NMSC-107, 74 N.M. 348, 393 P.2d 457; Clovis Fin. Co. v. Sides, 1963-NMSC-065, 72 N.M. 17, 380 P.2d 173.

Noncompliance not considered failure of title or breach of warranty. — The fact that the parties failed to comply with the title provisions would not operate to continue the plaintiff's status as a purchaser indefinitely. The title provisions refer to the duties of the dealer and transferee, but noncompliance therewith cannot be considered a failure of title, fraudulent misrepresentation, or breach of warranty as to freedom from liens on a motor vehicle. Prince v. National Union Fire Ins. Co., 1965-NMSC-073, 75 N.M. 313, 404 P.2d 137.

Noncompliance does not prevent malfeasant from bringing a suit. — When bonding company denied liability solely on the ground that since purchaser did not apply to the motor vehicle department (now motor vehicle division) of the state for a title within the time fixed by statute, he was guilty of a violation of a law, a wrong which made him in pari delicto and without standing to maintain suit, the court held that neither equity nor the law requires its suitors to be wholly blameless. Commercial Ins. Co. v. Watson, 261 F.2d 143 (10th Cir. 1958).

When title passes. — Since New Mexico does not require an exclusive or mandatory method of transferring title to an automobile, it therefore follows that title and ownership pass when the parties intend it to pass. Schall v. Mondragon, 1964-NMSC-107, 74 N.M. 348, 393 P.2d 457.

Incomplete application within time period satisfactory. — If the person does apply within 15 days (now 30 days) but does not have a completed registration or some defect is within his registration, he has met the requirements and is not subject to the penalty. 1954 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 54-5894.

Some evidence of title must be submitted to the motor vehicle division within 15 days (now 30 days) and the mere application without any evidence of title or without a current registration would not be sufficient. 1954 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 54-5894.