All actions upon judgments obtained outside this state, except judgments for child support or spousal support, or both, shall be brought within five years after such judgments have been obtained.
(Laws 1805, Cobb's 1851 Digest, p. 564; Ga. L. 1855-56, p. 233, § 7; Code 1863, § 2854; Code 1868, § 2862; Code 1873, § 2913; Code 1882, § 2913; Civil Code 1895, § 3760; Civil Code 1910, § 4354; Code 1933, § 3-701; Ga. L. 1997, p. 1613, § 1.)
Law reviews.- For annual survey on law of domestic relations, see 42 Mercer L. Rev. 201 (1990). For article commenting on the 1997 amendment of this Code section, see 14 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 121 (1997).
JUDICIAL DECISIONS
Full faith and credit is not denied foreign judgments by this section. Watkins v. Conway, 221 Ga. 374, 144 S.E.2d 721 (1965), aff'd, 385 U.S. 188, 87 S. Ct. 357, 17 L. Ed. 2d 286 (1966).
This section does not discriminate against foreign judgments, but focuses on law of the foreign state. Watkins v. Conway, 385 U.S. 188, 87 S. Ct. 357, 17 L. Ed. 2d 286 (1966).
This section applies to judgments rendered in favor of sister state. Tennessee v. Virgin, 36 Ga. 388 (1867).
Limitation runs from rendition of foreign judgment, so long as judgment is not dormant under laws of sister state. Frank v. Wolf, 17 Ga. App. 468, 87 S.E. 697 (1916).
Trial court properly found that an action to enforce a Florida judgment entered against a judgment debtor was time-barred under Georgia law, granting the judgment debtor's motion to stay enforcement of said judgment, as the statute of limitations on enforcement of the Florida judgment had run under the law of Georgia, the receiving state, when viewed from the date of rendition of the judgment in the State of Florida, the state in which the judgment originated; moreover, to run the Georgia time limitation from the date of the filing of the judgment rather than from the date of rendition of the judgment would be contrary to the language of the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Law, O.C.G.A. § 9-12-130 et seq., and of Georgia's dormancy-of-judgment and judgment-renewal statutes, O.C.G.A. §§ 9-12-60 and9-12-61. Corzo Trucking Corp. v. West, 281 Ga. App. 361, 636 S.E.2d 39 (2006).
Limitation runs from time of revival of foreign judgment. Fegan v. Bently, 32 Ga. 534 (1861).
Statute commences to run from point in time when judgment was revived and not from time when judgment was first obtained when judgment was revived according to statute law of state in which it was rendered. Baty v. Holston, 108 Ga. App. 359, 133 S.E.2d 107 (1963).
Section is not bar to action on revived judgment from another state unless five years have elapsed since revival. Baty v. Holston, 108 Ga. App. 359, 133 S.E.2d 107 (1963).
Actions on foreign judgments are barred by this section only if plaintiff cannot revive judgment in state where it was originally obtained. Watkins v. Conway, 385 U.S. 188, 87 S. Ct. 357, 17 L. Ed. 2d 286 (1966).
Filing foreign judgment under uniform law not barred.
- O.C.G.A. § 9-3-20 does not bar the filing and enforcement of a properly authenticated foreign judgment under the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Law, O.C.G.A. § 9-12-30 et seq. Wright v. Trust Co. Bank, 219 Ga. App. 551, 466 S.E.2d 74 (1995).
Grant of a stay of a filed foreign judgment was erroneous because under O.C.G.A. § 9-12-134(b) a judgment rendered by a court in Georgia is not subject to the limitation period imposed on foreign judgments by O.C.G.A. § 9-3-20; rather, judgments filed under the Uniform Law are subject to a stay of execution if they are dormant under O.C.G.A. § 9-12-60(a). Aetna Ins. Co. v. Williams, 237 Ga. App. 881, 517 S.E.2d 109 (1999).
Installment payments of alimony.
- Under Alabama chancery decree awarding alimony to be paid in monthly installments, plaintiff was not barred until five years after failure of the defendant to abide by decree, even though the judgment was barred. Heakes v. Heakes, 157 Ga. 863, 122 S.E. 777 (1924).
This section does not begin to run against installment payments of alimony provided for in foreign judgment until maturity and failure to pay them pursuant to requirements of judgment. McLendon v. McLendon, 66 Ga. App. 156, 17 S.E.2d 252 (1941); Albert v. Albert, 86 Ga. App. 560, 71 S.E.2d 904 (1952); Levine v. Seley, 217 Ga. 384, 123 S.E.2d 1 (1961).
In action to enforce payment of past due installments of monthly alimony provided for in foreign judgment, recovery may be had for all matured and unpaid installments within period of five years before date of bringing action. McLendon v. McLendon, 66 Ga. App. 156, 17 S.E.2d 252 (1941).
Since right to sue on alimony judgment is vested in parent and not children, five-year limitation period for bringing action on such foreign alimony judgment by plaintiff parent is not tolled because of minority of the children. Levine v. Seley, 217 Ga. 384, 123 S.E.2d 1 (1961).
Section does not provide statute of limitation defense to action for child support arrearages under foreign state judgment.
- When plaintiff-wife and defendant-husband were divorced in Ohio in 1974, and in 1985 plaintiff instituted an action pursuant to the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act (URESA), against defendant, seeking to recover arrearages in child support awarded by the Ohio judgment, and defendant moved to dismiss the URESA petition, insofar as it sought a recovery of child support arrearages which had accrued more than five years prior to the initiation of the action, the trial court correctly denied the defendant's motion to dismiss and entered judgment against the defendant for all accrued arrearages, since O.C.G.A. § 9-3-20 does not providethe defendant with a statute of limitation defense to this URESA action for child support arrearages under the Ohio judgment. Brookins v. Brookins, 190 Ga. App. 852, 380 S.E.2d 494 (1989).
O.C.G.A. §§ 9-3-20 and9-12-60(a)(1) did not apply to a Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act action to enforce arrearages on a foreign child support order. Georgia Dep't of Human Resources v. Deason, 238 Ga. App. 853, 520 S.E.2d 712 (1999).
Divorce decree.
- Where an action to domesticate a Pennsylvania divorce decree was barred by the five-year statute of limitations in Georgia and, further, there was no authority for a Georgia court to "correct" a domesticated judgment of another state, denial of a summary judgment in favor of a former wife as to her claim for domestication and correction of the decree was proper. Eickhoff v. Eickhoff, 263 Ga. 498, 435 S.E.2d 914 (1993).
Enforcement of foreign judgment barred.
- When a judgment creditor sought to domesticate a foreign judgment, but did not notify the trial court of the creditor's intent to rely on the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Law, O.C.G.A. § 9-12-130 et seq., it was an action to enforce a judgment which was barred because it was filed more than five years after the judgment was entered. Williams v. American Credit Servs., Inc., 229 Ga. App. 801, 495 S.E.2d 121 (1998).
Judgments from an in-state federal court are not subject to the statute.
- Judgments from federal courts within the state are judgments obtained within the state and are not included in the definition of a foreign judgment that would require domestication before obtaining lien priority. Tunnelite, Inc. v. Estate of Sims, 266 Ga. App. 476, 597 S.E.2d 555 (2004).
Cited in Latine v. Clements, 3 Ga. 426 (1847); Mosely v. Mosely, 67 Ga. 92 (1881); LaGrange Mills v. Kener, 121 Ga. 429, 49 S.E. 300 (1904); Vinson v. Citizens & S. Nat'l Bank, 208 Ga. 813, 69 S.E.2d 866 (1952); Bishop v. Sanford, 15 Ga. 1 (1954); Watkins v. Conway, 220 Ga. 27, 136 S.E.2d 756 (1964); Mercantile Nat'l Bank v. Founders Life Assurance Co., 236 Ga. 71, 222 S.E.2d 368 (1976); Alley v. Alley, 137 Ga. App. 256, 223 S.E.2d 288 (1976); Coursin v. Harper, 236 Ga. 729, 225 S.E.2d 428 (1976); Retirement Credit Plan, Inc. v. Melnick, 139 Ga. App. 570, 228 S.E.2d 740 (1976); Jacoby v. Jacoby, 150 Ga. App. 725, 258 S.E.2d 534 (1979); Murdock v. Madison River Terminal, Inc., 249 Ga. App. 608, 547 S.E.2d 802 (2001).
RESEARCH REFERENCES
Am. Jur. 2d.
- 47 Am. Jur. 2d, Judgments, §§ 770, 788 et seq., 798, 801, 803. 51 Am. Jur. 2d, Limitation of Actions, §§ 95, 96.
C.J.S.- 50 C.J.S., Judgments, § 965 et seq. 54 C.J.S., Limitation of Actions, §§ 298, 396.
ALR.
- Foreign judgment based upon or which fails to give effect to a judgment previously rendered at the forum or in the third jurisdiction, 44 A.L.R. 457; 53 A.L.R. 1146.
Statute of limitation applicable to interest on judgment, 120 A.L.R. 719.
Conflict of laws as to time limitations governing action on foreign judgment, 36 A.L.R.2d 567.
Causes of action governed by limitations period in UCC § 2-725, 49 A.L.R.5th 1.
Proof of foreign official record under Rule 44(a)(2) of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 41 A.L.R. Fed. 784.