Step-by-step

This guide shows you how to run a Structured Settlement workflow in DocketMath for New Mexico (US-NM), using jurisdiction-aware defaults (including New Mexico’s general statute of limitations). This is a tooling walkthrough—not legal advice.

1) Open the Structured Settlement calculator

1. Go to the calculator at /tools/structured-settlement.
2. Confirm you’re selecting New Mexico (US-NM) as the jurisdiction, so DocketMath applies the US-NM rulesets.

2) Enter the settlement timeline inputs

Structured settlement outputs depend heavily on timing—especially when payments start and how long they last. In DocketMath, enter the timeline fields the calculator asks for. Common inputs include:

• Date of injury or claim accrual (the starting anchor)
• Date of settlement (when the structured arrangement is agreed)
• First payment date
• Payment frequency (e.g., monthly, annually)
• Number of payments or end date (depending on the calculator’s options)

If you don’t have an exact accrual date, use the best-documented date you have, and keep that assumption consistent across scenarios so you can compare results fairly.

3) Add economic inputs (payment and discount assumptions)

Next, enter the monetary components the calculator needs, such as:

• Payment amount (and whether it’s level or changes)
• Lump sum portion, if applicable (some structures include an immediate payment plus installments)
• Discount rate / interest rate assumption, if DocketMath requests it

How outputs change when you adjust inputs

Run small “what-if” iterations to understand the model’s sensitivity:

• Higher discount/interest rate → typically lowers present value (future dollars cost less today).
• Later first payment date → typically lowers present value (more deferral).
• More payments or a longer term → typically increases total future payout, and often affects present value as well (because more/longer cashflows are included).

When testing SOL timing effects, change only the date you’re evaluating (e.g., settlement date) while keeping other economic assumptions fixed.

4) Apply New Mexico’s jurisdiction-aware timing rule (SOL default)

DocketMath includes jurisdiction-aware timing defaults to help you evaluate whether a scenario lines up with the general statute of limitations.

For New Mexico, DocketMath should rely on:

• General SOL period: 2 years
• General statute: N.M. Stat. Ann. § 31-1-8

Important clarification (general default only)

Practically, this affects the part of the workflow where DocketMath compares your timeline (e.g., accrual vs. settlement/trigger dates) to the 2-year window.

5) Review the SOL-related timing check in the output

After you run the calculation, review any output that flags SOL/timing alignment, such as whether the scenario is:

• Within the 2-year general window under the default rule, or
• Outside it, based on the tool’s computed/derived timing comparison.

Then connect that back to your inputs:

• You can have a financially consistent structure (payment schedule and amounts match what you intend) but still get a timing-inconsistent result if the accrual-to-settlement (or relevant comparison) window misses the general 2-year default.
• Conversely, a result that falls within the window doesn’t replace the need to confirm your structure timeline matches the actual settlement plan you intend (e.g., first payment and cadence).

6) Export, save, or iterate scenarios

Most DocketMath workflows support running multiple scenarios. Create at least 2–3 so you can compare how both timing and money move:

• Scenario A (baseline): your best estimate of accrual date and target structure terms
• Scenario B (timing shift): keep payment terms steady, move settlement date (or first payment date) forward/backward
• Scenario C (rate sensitivity): rerun with a higher/lower discount rate (if the calculator allows it)

This helps you see whether changes are driven by SOL timing or by present value / interest assumptions, without rebuilding the model each time.

Try it

If you want a quick workflow test, open DocketMath’s calculator at /tools/structured-settlement and do a 60-second check:

1. Set Jurisdiction: US-NM.
2. Choose an accrual date, then set a settlement date within 2 years of that accrual date and run.
3. Run again with the settlement date moved to just over 2 years.

Use the output differences to confirm you’re testing the general SOL logic driven by N.M. Stat. Ann. § 31-1-8, not claim-type-specific exceptions (since none were found in the provided jurisdiction data).

Common pitfalls

Structured settlement inputs and SOL timing checks have predictable failure points. Use this checklist before trusting the output.

SOL timing pitfalls

Structured payment pitfalls

Assumption pitfalls

Try it

If you want a quick workflow test, open DocketMath’s calculator at /tools/structured-settlement and do a 60-second check:

• Set Jurisdiction: US-NM
• Use a settlement date that is within 2 years of your chosen accrual date (to see the SOL check pass)
• Run again with the settlement date moved to just over 2 years (to see how outputs/timing flags respond)

Related reading

• Browse the blog

Step-by-step

• Select New Mexico in the Structured Settlement tool.
• Enter the trigger dates and any caps or rates.
• Run the calculation and save the output.

If an assumption is uncertain, document it alongside the calculation so the result can be re-run later.

Common pitfalls

• missing a required input
• using a stale rate or rule
• ignoring calendar or holiday adjustments
• skipping documentation of assumptions

When rules change, rerun the calculation with updated inputs and store the revision in the matter record.

If an assumption is uncertain, document it alongside the calculation so the result can be re-run later.

Related reading

• Structured Settlement Calculator Guide for Alabama
• Structured Settlement Calculator Guide for Arizona
• Structured Settlement Calculator Guide for Colorado