Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

statutemotionstatute of limitations
statutestatute of limitations

Related Cases

Jinks v. Richland County, S.C., 538 U.S. 456, 123 S.Ct. 1667, 155 L.Ed.2d 631, 91 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 868, 71 USLW 4298, 03 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3367, 2003 Daily Journal D.A.R. 4223, 16 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 233
View Case »
Palmer v. Hoffman, 318 U.S. 109, 63 S.Ct. 477, 87 L.Ed. 645, 144 A.L.R. 719, 1943 A.M.C. 299
View Case »
Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 89 S.Ct. 1827, 23 L.Ed.2d 430, 48 O.O.2d 320
View Case »
Gelfand v. Tanner Motor Tours, Limited, 385 F.2d 116
View Case »
Light v. Light, 12 Ill.2d 502, 147 N.E.2d 34
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Potomac Leasing Co. v. Dasco Technology Corp., 10 P.3d 972, 403 Utah Adv. Rep. 8, 2000 UT 73

Facts

In July 1985, Potomac obtained a judgment against Karren in Texas but never executed on it. In April 1997, Potomac filed the Texas judgment with the district court in Utah under the Utah Foreign Judgment Act. Karren filed a motion for relief from the judgment in April 1998, arguing that Potomac's filing was barred by Utah's eight-year statute of limitations since it was filed almost twelve years after the original judgment was entered in Texas.

Issue

Whether Utah's eight-year statute of limitations for enforcing foreign judgments applies to the time period between a foreign judgment's entry in the rendering state and the judgment's registration in Utah under the Utah Foreign Judgment Act.

Whether section 78–12–22(1) applies to the time period between when the foreign judgment was entered and when it was filed in Utah under the Utah Foreign Judgment Act is a legal determination, see State v. Pena, 869 P.2d 932, 935 (Utah 1994), which we review for correctness, giving “ ‘no particular deference to the district court's ruling.’ ” Carlie v. Morgan, 922 P.2d 1, 3 (Utah 1996) (quoting World Peace Movement of Am. v. Newspaper Agency Corp., 879 P.2d 253, 259 (Utah 1994)).

Rule

The eight-year statute of limitations for enforcing foreign judgments, as stated in Utah Code Ann. § 78–12–22(1), applies to the time period from when the foreign judgment is entered in the rendering state to when it is registered in Utah.

Section 78–12–22(1) states, “An action may be brought within eight years: (1) upon a judgment or decree of any court of the United States, or of any state or territory within the United States.” Utah Code Ann. § 78–12–22(1) (1996).

Analysis

The court determined that the statute of limitations applies to the registration of the foreign judgment in Utah. Since Potomac's Texas judgment was filed in Utah almost twelve years after it was entered in Texas, it did not meet the requirement of being filed within the eight-year statute of limitations. The court emphasized that the statute of limitations begins to run from the date the judgment is issued in the rendering state.

Applying these requirements to this case, Potomac's Texas judgment was not filed with the district court within eight years from the date the judgment was entered in Texas. Potomac obtained judgment against Karren in Texas in July 1985, and filed the judgment with the district court in April 1997, almost twelve years later. Because Potomac did not meet the requirement that the judgment be filed within eight years of its issuance or renewal, the Texas judgment cannot be enforced against Karren in Utah.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the district court's ruling that Potomac's Texas judgment could not be enforced in Utah because it was not filed within the eight-year statute of limitations.

Because Potomac did not file the Texas judgment with the district court before the eight-year statute of limitations had expired, the district court correctly determined that the judgment was not enforceable in Utah.

Who won?

Karren prevailed in the case because the court upheld the district court's decision that Potomac's filing of the Texas judgment was barred by the eight-year statute of limitations.

You must be