An owner of a motor vehicle registered in New Mexico who is aggrieved by the decision of the secretary made under the provisions of the Mandatory Financial Responsibility Act may appeal to the administrative hearings office for a hearing to be held within twenty days after the receipt by the administrative hearings office of the appeal. A person who continues to be aggrieved after the decision made by the hearing officer may appeal that decision in the district court pursuant to the provisions of Section 39-3-1.1 NMSA 1978.
History: 1978 Comp., § 66-5-204, enacted by Laws 1983, ch. 318, § 5; 1998, ch. 55, § 79; 1999, ch. 265, § 80; 2015, ch. 73, § 32.
Repeals and reenactments. — Laws 1983, ch. 318, § 5, repealed former 66-5-204 NMSA 1978, relating to court review of orders or acts of the director of the motor vehicle division, and enacted the above section.
Cross references. — For appeal of final decisions by agencies to district court, see 39-3-1.1 NMSA 1978.
For procedures governing administrative appeals to the district court, see Rule 1-074 NMRA.
The 2015 amendment, effective July 1, 2015, authorized the owner of a motor vehicle registered in New Mexico who is aggrieved by the decision of the secretary made under the provisions of the Mandatory Financial Responsibility Act to appeal to the administrative hearings office; after "appeal to the", deleted "hearing officer of the department" and added "administrative hearings office", after "twenty days", deleted "of" and added "after", after "receipt by the", deleted "department" and added "administrative hearings office", and after "continues", added "to be".
The 1999 amendment, effective July 1, 1999, substituted "secretary" for "director", "department" for "division", and "Section 39-3-1.1" for "Section 12-8A-1".
The 1998 amendment, effective September 1, 1998, rewrote the second and third sentences and made minor stylistic changes throughout the section.
Review under former law. — Since the state has a legitimate interest in protecting the users of its highways by placing reasonable restrictions upon the driving privilege, the concept of requiring proof of financial responsibility from licensees was clearly constitutional, and such proof could be required, without a hearing to avoid suspension, following an accident; the judicial review provided for in Section 64-24-44, 1953 Comp. (similar to this section), was adequate to assure compliance with the law by the administrative officials. Quetawki v. Prentice, 303 F. Supp. 737 (D.N.M. 1968).
Copyright ©2024 LegalFix. All rights reserved. LegalFix is not a law firm, is not licensed to practice law, and does not provide legal advice, services, or representation. The information on this website is an overview of the legal plans you can purchase—or that may be provided by your employer as an employee benefit or by your credit union or other membership group as a membership benefit.
LegalFix provides its members with easy access to affordable legal services through a network of independent law firms. LegalFix, its corporate entity, and its officers, directors, employees, agents, and contractors do not provide legal advice, services, or representation—directly or indirectly.
The articles and information on the site are not legal advice and should not be relied upon—they are for information purposes only. You should become a LegalFix member to get legal services from one of our network law firms.
You should not disclose confidential or potentially incriminating information to LegalFix—you should only communicate such information to your network law firm.
The benefits and legal services described in the LegalFix legal plans are not always available in all states or with all plans. See the legal plan Benefit Overview and the more comprehensive legal plan contract during checkout for coverage details in your state.
Use of this website, the purchase of legal plans, and access to the LegalFix networks of law firms are subject to the LegalFix Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.