Plaintiffs appeal from the trial court’s order granting summary judgment to defendants in this judgment lien foreclosure case. Plaintiffs argue that a 2001 judgment had been renewed or revived by a 2006 stipulated amended order, and that the court erred in concluding that their judgment lien had expired. We affirm.
The trial court correctly found that plaintiffs’ judgment lien was no longer effective because more than eight years had elapsed from the issuance of the original final judgment on which it was based. See 12 V.S.A. § 2903(a). Revival required the filing of a “new and independent action” on the judgment, see 12 V.S.A. § 506, which did not occurred here. Nelson v. Russo, 2008 VT 66, ¶ 6, 184 Vt. 550, 956 A.2d 1117 (mem.). (judgments cannot be renewed by motion, but only by the filing of a “new and independent suit commenced in accordance with Rule 3.” )
Plaintiffs did not file a new complaint on the judgment. Instead, they filed a motion for a possessory writ of attachment that led to a stipulated amended judgment order regarding payment of the 2001 debt. This was not a new “final judgment” for purposes of 12 V.S.A. § 2903(a). The fact that this order might have been appealable does not change this result. Any other holding would create a continually moving statute of limitations. Were we to construe such post-judgment orders as starting a new limitations period, a party could extend the life of a judgment lien indefinitely by filing motions. The statute does not contemplate this result, and the need for certainty and predictability in the law compels us to reject such an approach. The statute of limitations runs from a single ascertainable moment—the issuance of a final judgment on the merits.
Robinson, J. dissenting, cannot concur in the majority's conclusion that the 2006 order was not in fact a judgment for the purposes of the statute of limitations. The statute of limitations draws no distinction between "original" and "amended" judgments, and nothing in the language of the statute supports the notion that "judgment" has a different meaning for the purposes of the statute of limitations than for other purposes. See 12 V.S.A. § 2903 ("A judgment lien shall be effective for eight years from the issuance of a final judgment on which it is based . . . .").
Note: See Flex-A-Seal, Inc. v. Safford, 2015 VT 40
Time has now changed and you don’t have to wait for months or even years for you to get a good number of twitter followers: you can simply site Lien judgment
ReplyDeleteNot only does buying of twitter followers eliminate the need for waiting, but it also eliminates the need for consistently creating posts asking people to follow you. The other advantage of buying twitter followers is that you have many twitter followers in your account within a short time (usually a matter of a few days). To buy the followers, all you need to do is to place your order and you will have the followers delivered in your account within a few days.