O.C.G.A. § 9-3-20 (2019)

Annotations

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 Ga. LEXIS 466 (1965), aff’d, 385 U.S. 188, 87 S. Ct. 357, 17 L. Ed. 2d 286, 1966 U.S. LEXIS 76 (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 U.S. LEXIS 76 (1966). This section applies to judgments rendered in favor of sister state. Tennessee v. Virgin, 36 Ga. 388, 1867 Ga. LEXIS 51 (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 Ga. App. LEXIS 698 (1916). Trial court properly found that an action to enforce a Florida judgment entered against a judgment debtor was timebarred 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 and 9-12-61. Corzo Trucking Corp. v. West, 281 Ga. App. 361, 636 S.E.2d 39, 2006 Ga. App. LEXIS 991 (2006). Limitation runs from time of revival of foreign judgment. Fegan v. Bently, 32 Ga. 534, 1861 Ga. LEXIS 227 (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 Ga. App. LEXIS 642 (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 Ga. App. LEXIS 642 (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 U.S. LEXIS 76 (1966). Filing foreign judgment under uniform law not barred. - O.C.G.A. § 93-20 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 Ga. App. LEXIS 1090 (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. § 9-1260(a). Aetna Ins. Co. v. Williams, 237 Ga. App. 881, 517 S.E.2d 109. 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 Ga. LEXIS 266 (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 Ga. App. LEXIS 161 (1941); Albert v. Albert, 86 Ga. App. 560, 71 S.E.2d 904, 1952 Ga. App. LEXIS 1009

(1952); Levine v. Seley, 217 Ga. 384, 123 S.E.2d 1, 1961 Ga. LEXIS 465 (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 Ga. App. LEXIS 161 (1941). Since right to sue on alimony judgment is vested in parent and not children, fiveyear 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 Ga. LEXIS 465 (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 Ga. App. LEXIS 439 (1989).

O.C.G.A. §§ 9-3-20 and 9-12-60(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. 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 Ga. LEXIS 713 (1993), overruled, Lee v. Green Land Co., 272 Ga. 107, 527 S.E.2d 204, 2000 Ga. LEXIS 128 (2000). 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. 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 Ga. App. LEXIS 412 (2004), cert. denied, No. S04C1322, 2004 Ga. LEXIS 760 (Ga. Sept. 7, 2004).

RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. 2d. 47 Am. Jur. 2d, Judgments, § 749 et seq. 51 Am. Jur. 2d, Limitation of Actions, § 74 et seq. C.J.S. 50 C.J.S., Judgments, § 1244 et seq.

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 limita-

tions 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.