Code of Alabama

Ala. Code § 6-9-191 (2026)

Judgment Presumed Satisfied 10 Years After Entry or Execution.

✓ official Alabama Legislature (ALISON) text, current July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaAla. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

If 10 years have elapsed from the entry of the judgment without issue of execution or if 10 years have elapsed since the date of the last execution issued, the judgment must be presumed satisfied, and the burden of proving it not satisfied is upon the plaintiff.

(Code 1852, §2419; Code 1867, §2830; Code 1876, §3174; Code 1886, §2923; Code 1896, §1930; Code 1907, §4154; Code 1923, §7871; Code 1940, T. 7, §582.)

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1985–2025 · leading case: Hardy v. Johnson, 245 So. 3d 617 (Ala. Civ. App. 2017).
Hardy v. Johnson, 245 So. 3d 617 (Ala. Civ. App. 2017). · cites it 19× “otion, he argued, among other things, that the trial court had erred by failing to order the mother, who was incarcerated in a federal prison on the date of the June 2016 judgment, to pay child support and that certain of the child-support installments that the trial court had…”
Willey v. Willey, 203 So. 3d 875 (Ala. Civ. App. 2016). · cites it 10× “In her postjudgment motion, the former wife cited Ala.Code 1975, § 6-9-191, which addresses the revival of judgments and provides that, “[i]f 10 years have elapsed from the entry of the judgment without issue of execution or if 10 years have elapsed since the date of the last…”
Alred v. State Ex Rel. Hill, 603 So. 2d 1082 (Ala. Civ. App. 1992). · cites it 6× “The father bases his argument on Ala.Code 1975, § 6-9-191, which states that "[i]f 10 years have elapsed from the entry of the judgment without issue of execution or if 10 years have elapsed since the date of the last execution issued, the judgment must be presumed satisfied,…”
Davis Int'l, Inc. ex rel. Patel v. Berryman, 730 So. 2d 242 (Ala. Civ. App. 1999). · cites it 4× “In his motion, Berryman asserted that the judgment against him had “lapsed” on January 15, 1996, and that it had not been properly revived; relying on § 6-9-191, Ala.Code 1975, Berryman requested that the court enter an order showing that the judgment had been “satisfied.”
Williams v. Hobson, 5 So. 3d 630 (Ala. Civ. App. 2008). · cites it 2× “We note that Ala.Code 1975, § 6-9-191, provides that a rebuttable presumption that a judgment has been satisfied will arise after 10 years has elapsed from the entry of a judgment without issue of execution.”
Mollohan v. Jelley, 925 So. 2d 207 (Ala. Civ. App. 2005). “Thus, the payments are not subject to the presumption of satisfaction found in section 6-9-191." (Emphasis added.)”
Derringer v. Beadlescomb, 537 So. 2d 34 (Ala. Civ. App. 1988). · cites it 3× “§ 6-9-191, Code 1975. We disagree. This argument rests on the assumption that a child support payment becomes a “final judgment” on the date it falls due.”
Powles v. Kandrasiewicz, 886 F. Supp. 1261 (W.D.N.C. 1995). “"); see also Ala. Code Ann. 6-9-191 (1975).”
Tiffany Monique Lewis (Bankr. M.D. Ala. 2025). · cites it 12× “The Objection to Claim appears to alternatively assert that: a) the HMC Claim is presumed satisfied under Ala. Code § 6-9-191 (not that the HMC Claim was paid); or b) the HMC Claim is unenforceable pursuant to Ala.”
Hines v. Cunningham, 622 So. 2d 395 (Ala. Civ. App. 1993). “The father also cites § 6-9-191, Code 1975, which provides that: “If ten years have elapsed from the entry of the judgment without issue of execution, or if 10 years have elapsed since the date of the last execution issued, the judgment must be presumed satisfied, and the burden…”
Tiffany Monique Lewis (Bankr. M.D. Ala. 2025). · cites it 10× “TheObjectiontoClaimappearstoalternativelyassertthat: a)the HMCClaimispresumedsatisfiedunderAla.Code§6-9-191(notthattheHMCClaim was paid); or b) the HMC Claim is unenforceable pursuant to Ala.”
Allen v. First Alabama Bank (In re Sintz), 162 B.R. 572 (Bankr. S.D. Ala. 1993). “”)-, § 6-9-191 (“If 10 years have elapsed from the entry of the judgment without issue of execution .”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.