Committee commentary. — The New Mexico Constitution provides that district courts have only such "jurisdiction of special cases and proceeding as may be conferred by law." N.M. Const. Art VI, Sec. 13. As a matter of practice, but not constitutional compulsion, the Supreme Court has deferred to legislative directives concerning procedural matters in special proceedings even if they do not affect the Court’s jurisdiction. However, the Supreme Court sometimes adopts procedure rules that are explicitly applicable to statutory procedures for special cases and proceedings. When this occurs, the explicit contrary rule supersedes the statutory procedures. See Ammerman v. Hubbard Broadcasting Inc., 89 N.M. 307, 551 P.2d 1354 (1976) (Procedural statutes do not apply if contradicted by a rule of procedure promulgated by the Supreme Court); NMSA Sec. 38-1-2 ("Practice statutes may be modified or suspended by rules"); NMRA Rule 1-091 ("Adopting Procedural Statutes").
Rule 1-004(A)(1) (service of summons), Rule 1-087 (Contest of Election or Nomination) and Rules 1-071.1 to 1-071.5 (Stream Adjudications) are examples of procedural rules adopted by the New Mexico Supreme Court that supersede contrary statutory provisions dealing with special statutory cases or proceedings.
Special Cases, Proceedings Defined
Special cases and proceedings are "statutory proceedings to enforce rights and remedies created by statute and which were unknown at common law." In re Forest, 45 N.M. 204. 207, 113 P.2d 582, 583 (1941); VanderVossen v. City of Espanola, 130 N.M. 287, 24 P.3d 319, Par. 15 (Ct. App. 2001).
Special Proceedings
Special proceedings include: Election Contests [Montoya v. McManus, 68 N.M. 381, 384, 362 P.2d 771, 773 (1961)]; Probate Proceedings [In re Estate of Harrington, 129 N.M. 266, 5 P.3d 1070, 2000 -NMCA- 058, Par. 14]; Zoning Proceedings [VanderVossen v. City of Española, 130 N.M. 287, 24 P.3d 319, 2001-NMCA-016, Par. 15]; Workers’ Compensation Proceedings [Holman v. Oriental Refinery, 75 N.M. 52, 54, 400 P.2d 471, 473 (1965)]; Arbitration Proceedings [Medina v. Foundation Reserve Ins. Co., 123 N.M. 380, 940 P.2d 1175, Par. 10 (N.M. 1997)]; Declaratory Judgment Proceedings [Smith v. City of Santa Fe, 142 N.M. 786, 171 P.3d 300, 2007-NMSC-055, Par. 13]; Adoption Proceedings [In re Doe, 101 N.M. 34, 37, 677 P.2d 1070, 1073 (Ct. App. 1984)]; Garnishment Proceedings [Postal Finance Co. v. Sisneros, 84 N.M. 724, 725, 527 P.2d 785, 786 (1973)]; Stream Adjudications [Rule 1-071.2 NMRA]; Certain Tax Proceedings [In re Sevilleta de la Joya Grant, 41 N.M. 305, 68 P.2d 160 (1937) (tax sales); In re Blatt, 41 N.M. 269, 67 P.2d 293 (1937) (suit to recover overpayment of taxes); State v. Rosenwald Bros. Co., 23 N.M. 578, 170 P. 42 (1918) (challenge to tax evaluation)]; and Condemnation Proceedings [State v. Rosenwald Bros. Co., 23 N.M. 578, 170 P. 42 (1918)].
Summary Proceedings
Summary proceedings include direct Contempt, State v. Ngo, 130 N.M. 515, 520, 27 P.3d 1002, 1007 (Ct. App. 2001), and Proceedings to Enforce or Quash Subpoenas, Wilson Corp. v. State ex rel. Udall, 121 N.M. 677, 916 P.2d 1344, 1996-NMCA-049, Par. 13
Probate Proceedings
Though probate proceedings are "Special Proceedings," e.g., In re Estate of Harrington, 2000-NMCA-058, ¶ 15, 129 N.M. 266, 5 P.3d 1070, these rules apply only in district court and do not apply directly to proceedings in probate court. See NMSA 1978, § 34-7-13 (rule-making power of probate judges). Moreover, the publication provisions of Rule 1-004 NMRA apply only to service of "process" which is defined as "the means by which jurisdiction is obtained over a person to compel the person to appear in a judicial proceeding." Rule 1-004(B)(3). Thus, the Rule 1-004 requirements for, and restrictions on, service by publication apply only to any aspects of probate practice in district court that require service of process as defined in Rule 1-001(B)(3) NMRA. For a discussion of the constitutional limits on the use of publication as a method for giving notice generally in probate proceedings, seeTulsa Collection Services, Inc. v. Pope, 485 U.S. 478 (1988).
