Chapter 10, Article 12C NMSA 1978 may be cited as the "Magistrate Retirement Act".
History: Laws 1992, ch. 118, § 1; 2011, ch. 178, § 10.
ANNOTATIONSThe 2011 amendment, effective July 1, 2011, changed the statutory reference to the act.
Temporary provisions. — Laws 2011, ch. 178, § 15 provided that for the purposes of calculating employee and employer contributions due after June 30, 2011, in determining whether an employee has an annual salary greater or less than twenty thousand dollars ($20,000), the employee's annual salary shall be the employee's base hourly rate at the time the contribution is made multiplied by the number of compensable hours for a full-time-equivalent in the employee's position at the time the contribution is made as determined by the employer; provided that the department of finance and administration shall determine the number of compensable hours for a full-time-equivalent in the employee's position for employees who are members in a retirement program provided for in the Public Employees Retirement Act, the Magistrate Retirement Act or the Judicial Retirement Act.
Laws 2011, ch. 178, § 16, provided that notwithstanding a provision of Laws 2011, Chapter 178 to the contrary, the employer and employee contribution rates required by this act for the period from July 1, 2011 through June 30, 2012 shall continue for the period from July 1, 2012 through June 30, 2013 if, after the last consensus revenue forecast before the beginning of the second session of the fiftieth legislature, the secretary of finance and administration certifies to the retirement board of the public employees retirement association, the educational retirement board and the legislative finance committee that, according to the consensus revenue forecast:
(1) general fund revenues in fiscal year 2012 will be less than one hundred million dollars ($100,000,000) more than the general fund revenue forecast reflected in the fiscal year 2012 state budget; and
(2) at the end of fiscal year 2012, the total amount in the state reserve funds will be less than five percent of the total general fund appropriations for fiscal year 2012.
Impairment of contract and repeal of tax exemption. — Because no private contractual rights were granted by the retirement plan, there was no impairment or breach of contract resulting from the 1990 repeal of the tax exemption provision contained in former Section 10-12A-12 NMSA 1978 and, although the plan conferred property rights that vested upon accumulating minimum earned service credits, those rights did not include the right to receive pension benefits exempt from tax. Pierce v. State, 1996-NMSC-001, 121 N.M. 212, 910 P.2d 288.
Due process and repeal of tax exemption. — Because the retirement plan provided no contractual or vested right to receive an irrevocable tax exemption, there was no constitutionally protected private interest in the tax exemption and there was no due process violation when the exemption was repealed. Pierce v. State, 1996-NMSC-001, 121 N.M. 212, 910 P.2d 288.
Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — 46 Am. Jur. 2d Judges § 59.
48A C.J.S. Judges § 85.