Fiscal impact reports (FIRs) are prepared by the Legislative Finance Committee (LFC) for standing finance
committees of the Legislature. LFC does not assume responsibility for the accuracy of these reports if they
are used for other purposes.
F I S C A L I M P A C T R E P O R T
SPONSOR Sedillo Lopez
LAST UPDATED
ORIGINAL DATE 02
/27/2025
SHORT TITLE
Release of Certain People from Rent
Agreement
BILL
NUMBER Senate Bill 400
ANALYST Serna
ESTIMATED ADDITIONAL OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT*
(dollars in thousands)
Agency/Program
FY25 FY26 FY27
3 Year
Total Cost
Recurring or
Nonrecurring
Fund
Affected
AOC
Indeterminate
but minimal
Indeterminate
but minimal
Indeterminate
but minimal
Recurring General Fund
Parentheses ( ) indicate expenditure decreases.
*Amounts reflect most recent analysis of this legislation.
Relates to House Bill 57
Sources of Information
LFC Files
Agency Analysis Received From
Department of Public Safety
Administrative Office of the Courts
Agency Analysis was Solicited but Not Received From
New Mexico Department of Justice Housing New Mexico Governor’s Office on Housing
SUMMARY
Synopsis of Senate Bill 400
Senate Bill 400 (SB400) proposes certain gender neutral and clarifying language to NMSA 1978,
§ 47-8-33 on “Breach of Agreement by Resident and Relief by Owner” of the Uniform Owner-
Resident Relations Act (“UORRA”). Section 47-8-33 currently includes some provisions for
when a resident is a victim of domestic violence; SB400 proposes to amend the act to include
sexual assault. The bill adds new section that allows a resident who is the victim of domestic
violence or sexual assault that occurred in the dwelling unit or on the premises to terminate a
rental agreement without being liable for future rent or any early termination penalties by:
Providing written notice to the owner;
Vacating the premises on a mutually agreed date within 30 days of the notice date; and
Submitting either a protective order issued to the victim or a letter or form from a
provider of services for victims confirming the incident. Senate Bill 400 – Page 2
If the resident terminates the rental agreement under this new section of UORRA, the resident
would only be liable for rent owed through the lease’s termination date including any previous
outstanding obligations. The resident would be required to pay the owner any amount due before
the date on which the resident vacates the dwelling unit. However, prepaid rent for the
termination month may be retained by the owner. Security deposits cannot be withheld for early
termination but may be withheld for damages or failure to maintain the premises.
If the owner installs a new lock on the premises at the resident’s request, SB400 allows the
owner to refuse to provide a key to the alleged perpetrator. SB400 would also deny the alleged
perpetrator to reclaim property unless accompanied by a law enforcement officer.
SB400 also establishes:
Treble damages liability for a resident convicted of falsely filing a protection order for
domestic violence or for sexual assault for the purpose of terminating a rental agreement.
Civil liability for alleged perpetrators who "interfere with rental agreements" regardless
of whether they are parties to the agreement, including potential responsibility for unpaid
rent, fees, repairs, and rent reductions granted to victims.
Protections to co-residents, releasing them from financial obligations related to the
terminated agreement and permitting both victims and co-residents to enter into new
rental agreements if they meet all current application requirements.
The effective date of this bill is July 1, 2025.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS
HB400 does not include an appropriation. The Department of Public Safety reported that
adoption of the bill would result in no fiscal impact. However, the Administrative Office of the
Courts (AOC) acknowledges that bill will have a fiscal impact, albeit difficult to quantify:
With the complexity to questions of liability for rent and damages that SB400 would add
to UORRA and the additional defenses and evidence that could be presented at any trial
on a petition for writ of restitution or in a hearing on damages, there could be an increase
in the length of these trials and evidentiary proceedings on damages, but any
corresponding fiscal impact to the courts would be difficult to quantify.
AOC’s analysis of the fiscal impact suggests the proposed new section of the UORRA would
likely add complexity to any trial or hearing necessitating additional time for defense and or
gathering evidence. Under this scenario, the AOC’s fiscal impact would most likely be
indeterminate but minimal, possibly resulting in a future increase in the agency’s operating costs.
SIGNIFICANT ISSUES
SB400 contains several definitional ambiguities that could impact SB400’s implementation.
AOC notes that SB400 does not specify the type of protective order granted to the victim:
Paragraph A (1) of Section 2 of SB 400 refers to a resident’s provision of a “protective
order” but does not specify whether a temporary order of protection under NMSA 1978,
§ 40-13-4 would suffice or if an Order of Protection under NMSA 1978, § 40-13-5 would
be required.
Senate Bill 400 – Page 3
AOC also notes that SB400 does not clarify between "domestic violence" and "domestic abuse",
and leaves "sexual assault" undefined, including whether the penalties would also apply if the
victim was a minor child resident:
SB400 also does not clarify what is mean by “domestic violence” and if the bill means to
refer to “domestic abuse” under the Family Violence Protection Act, NMSA 1978, § 40-
13-2(D), or if some other definition is intended. Similarly, SB400 does not clarify what is
meant by “sexual assault” and if felony criminal sexual penetration under NMSA 1978, §
30-9-11 is intended or if the misdemeanor crime of criminal sexual contact under NMSA
1978, § 30-9-12 would also satisfy this requirement. The bill is also not clear if the early
termination provisions without penalty would apply if the victim of the domestic violence
or sexual assault was a minor child resident (e.g. under NMSA 1978, § 30-9-12), but, as a
minor, the victim was not a party to a rental agreement.
Furthermore, AOC questions SB400’s provision allowing an owner to terminate a lease
agreement based on allegations without requiring charges or conviction:
SB400 would terminate a rental agreement and deny a person with access to the premises
upon an allegation by the resident who alleges to be a victim without the person having
been charged with or convicted of sexual assault.
Lastly, AOC also noted the inconsistent uses of "landlord" and "owner" throughout SB400:
Paragraph C, line 24 of Section 2 of SB400 refers to “landlord” instead of “owner,”
which is the term referenced elsewhere in this proposed new section of UORRA, and
owner, not landlord, is also the defined term in NMSA 1978, § 47-8-3(L).
AOC identifies contradictory provisions within SB400 concerning rent payment when a
domestic violence or sexual assault victim terminates the lease, with one clause indicating the
refunding of prorated rent through the termination date while another section allows landlords to
retain full prepaid monthly rent without refunding the resident, potentially creating
implementation challenges:
Paragraph C of Section 2 of SB 400 could invite confusion in that in one part it provides
that “the resident is liable only for rent owed or paid through the date of the rental
agreement termination…,” which suggests that rent would be prorated through the
termination date. But, then later in that same paragraph, it provides that, “If the resident
has prepaid rent that would apply for the month in which the rental agreement is
terminated, the owner may retain the prepaid rent and no refund is due to the resident.”
CONFLICT, DUPLICATION, COMPANIONSHIP, RELATIONSHIP
HB400 relates to HB57, which amends the Family Violence Protection Act (FPVA) to provide
any indigent, alleged domestic abuse victim with the right to an attorney for assistance in all
legal
proceedings related to alleged domestic abuse or the alleged domestic abuser.
RS/rl/hj/SL2