NMSA 1978, § 47-7C-17

A. Except as provided in Subsection B of this section, a judgment for money against the association is not a lien on the common elements but is a lien in favor of the judgment lienholder against all of the units in the condominium at the time the transcript of judgment was recorded. No other property of a unit owner is subject to the claims of creditors of the association. B. If the association has granted a security interest in the common elements to a creditor of the association pursuant to Section 47-7C-12 NMSA 1978, the holder of that security interest shall exercise its right against the common elements before its judgment lien on any unit may be enforced. C. Whether perfected before or after the creation of the condominium, if a lien other than a deed of trust or mortgage, including a judgment lien or lien attributable to work performed or materials supplied before creation of the condominium, becomes effective against two or more units, the unit owner of an affected unit may pay to the lienholder the amount of the lien attributable to his unit, and the lienholder, upon receipt of payment, shall promptly deliver a release of the lien covering that unit. The amount of the payment shall be proportionate to the ratio which that unit owner's common expense liability bears to the common expense liabilities of all unit owners whose units are subject to the lien. After payment, the association shall not assess or have a lien against that unit owner's unit for any portion of the common expenses incurred in connection with that lien. D. Subsequent to recording the declaration as provided in the Condominium Act and while the real estate remains subject to that act, no lien shall arise or be effective against the real estate. During the period, liens or encumbrances shall only arise or be created against each unit and the percentage of undivided interest in the common elements, appurtenant to the unit, in the same manner and under the same conditions as liens and encumbrances may arise or be created upon any other parcel of real property subject to individual ownership; provided, however, that no labor performed or materials furnished, with the consent or at the request of a unit owner or his agent or his contractor or subcontractor, shall be the basis for the filing of a lien pursuant to law against the unit or other property of another unit owner not expressly consenting to or requesting the same; except that express consent shall be deemed to be given by the owner of any unit in the case of emergency repairs. Labor performed or materials furnished for the common elements, if duly authorized by the association of unit owners, the manager or board of directors in accordance with the Condominium Act, the declaration or bylaws, shall be deemed to be performed or furnished with the express consent of each unit owner and shall be the basis for the filing of a lien pursuant to law against each of the units. E. A judgment against the association must be indexed in the name of the condominium and the association and, when so indexed, is notice of the lien against the units. History: Laws 1982, ch. 27, § 50; 1983, ch. 245, § 6. ANNOTATIONS Compiler's notes. — This section is similar to § 3-117 of the Uniform Condominium Act, with the following main exceptions: Subsection A of this section of the state Condominium Act substituted "recorded" for "entered" at the end of the first sentence; Subsection C of this section of the state Condominium Act substituted "shall" for "may" in the third sentence; and Subsection D of this section of the state Condominium Act does not appear in § 3-117 of the Uniform Condominium Act. The 1983 amendment substituted a New Mexico citation for a Uniform Condominium Act citation in Subsection B, and substituted "elements" for "areas and facilities" in the last sentence in Subsection D. COMMISSIONERS' COMMENT 1. This section deals with the effect on unit owners of judgments against the association. The issue is not free from difficulty. Presently, in most states, if the association is organized as a corporation, the unit owners are likely to receive the insulation from liability given shareholders of a corporation, so that the judgment lienholder can satisfy his judgment only against the property of the association. On the other hand, if the association is organized as an unincorporated association, under the law of most states each unit owner would have joint and several liability on the judgment. This act strikes a balance between the two extremes, making the judgment lien a direct lien against each individual unit, but allowing the individual unit owner to discharge the lien by payment of his pro-rata share of the judgment. The judgment would also be a lien against any property owned by the association. 2. It should be noted that, while the judgment lien runs directly against unit owners, the actual liability of the unit owner is almost identical with what it would be if the ordinary corporation rule insulating the unit owner from direct liability were applied. If the incorporated association only is liable for a judgment, it will, of course, have no assets to satisfy the judgment except whatever personal property and real estate not a part of the common elements it owns. If a checking account or other cash funds of the association are attached or garnisheed by the creditor, the association, in order to maintain its operations and fulfill its other obligations, will be obliged to make an additional assessment against the unit owners to cover the judgment. The same result follows if the association is to prevent the sale of other assets at an execution sale. That additional assessment would be in precisely the amount for which this act gives a direct lien against the individual unit owners. Further, if an association which is without sufficient assets to satisfy a judgment refuses to make assessments from which the creditor can have his claim satisfied, it is very likely that a court, in a supplemental proceeding on the judgment, would direct the association to make the necessary assessments against the unit owners. Unpaid assessments made by the association constitute liens against units just as to judgments. Therefore, whether the lien of the judgment creditor runs against the units directly, or whether the lien is only against the association which finds it necessary to make additional assessments to satisfy the judgment, the unit owner who does not pay his proportionate share will end up with a lien against his unit. The differences, therefore, between the lien system established by § 3-117 [this section] and the system which would be applicable if ordinary corporation rules were applied are these: (1) The unit owner can discharge his unit from the lien and free it from the possibility of being subsequently assessed by the association for the judgment by making a payment directly to the lienholder. This ability may be valuable to a unit owner who is in the process of selling or securing a mortgage on his unit during the period between the time the judgment is entered and the time the association makes a formal assessment against individual unit owners for the amount of the judgment lien. (2) The judgment creditor through his ability to threaten to foreclose the lien on an individual unit if the judgment is not paid is given some leverage over individual unit owners to encourage them to see that the association pays the judgment. Procuring an assessment through pressure on individual unit owners may be quicker and cheaper for the judgment creditor than using supplemental proceedings and having a judge order that the board of directors make the necessary assessment. In the rare case where, under corporation law an association could avoid payment of a judgment by dissolution of the association and vesting of title to the units in the unit owners as tenants-in-common or otherwise, the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws believes that that result is inappropriate, and that the unit in the condominium itself should be viewed as equity property of the association capable of being reached by judgment creditors in satisfaction of the judgment. As a matter of social policy the condominium association is in quite a different position than the ordinary corporation. The corporation statutes provide shareholders immunity from liability for debts of the corporation to encourage investment in corporations whose entrepreneurial activities in the marketplace contribute to the general wealth and well- being of society. The condominium association, in managing the affairs of the homeowners, does not serve the same entrepreneurial function. It seems reasonable, as a matter of social policy, that an individual homeowner who would be fully liable for debts incurred in the renovation and maintenance of his home or for torts caused by his failure to adequately maintain the premises should not be able to entirely avoid that liability through the device of organizing with other homeowners into a condominium association. On the other hand, it is perhaps not fair to a unit owner in a condominium regime to have all of his assets at risk based on the contracts of the association over which he has little control and as to which he has only a fractional interest or benefit. It should be noted that, except for situations in which the association has given a mortgage or deed of trust on common elements, the judgment creditor cannot assert a lien against common elements, but is rather left to a lien against the units. That is, the judgment creditor has no power to levy on the golf course or on the swimming pool or other open spaces and sell them independently of the units to satisfy the judgment. Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — 15A Am. Jur. 2d Condominiums and Cooperative Apartments §§ 36, 37, 47. 31 C.J.S. Estates § 153 et seq.