The court may require any such person to post a ne exeat bond conditioned on such persons [person's] appearance at all hearings on the matter at issue.
History: 1953 Comp., § 49-15-16, enacted by Laws 1971, ch. 164, § 2.
ANNOTATIONSBracketed material. — The bracketed material was inserted by the compiler and is not part of the law.
The writ of ne exeat may detain property as well as the person. — At common law, a bond is an inherent part of a writ of ne exeat. Historically, where the removal of property would defeat the purpose of a ne exeat writ, the order in the writ may detain property as well as the person. At common law, a ne exeat writ, including a bond, may be conditioned on preservation of assets. This section does not prohibit bonds related to assets or property. Therefore, since the statute is silent as to these bonds, the statute does not abrogate the common law. Atherton v. Gopin, 2015-NMCA-087.
Following entry of summary judgment for over $2,500,000 against defendant for violations of the New Mexico Unfair Practices Act (UPA), 57-12-1 NMSA 1978 et seq., the district court issued a writ of ne exeat and ordered defendant to post a ne exeat bond in the amount of $100,000 based on evidence that defendant was about to remove assets from the jurisdiction of the district court, and following a hearing where the district court found that there was evidence that defendant had engaged in complex financial transactions for the purpose of preventing collection of the judgment, that defendant had dissipated assets during the pendency of the case, including the sale of property, and that defendant, who failed to appear at the hearing, had previously testified under oath that he would attend all future hearings in the case and would not flee the jurisdiction, the district court increased the ne exeat bond to $500,000 to prevent further dissipation of assets within the jurisdiction of the court and to secure defendant's appearance at future proceedings. Issuance of the bond order conditioned on preservation of assets was not contrary to the UPA, because the UPA does not abrogate the common law, which permitted a ne exeat bond to be conditioned on preservation of assets. Atherton v. Gopin, 2015-NMCA-087.