Idaho Code
Idaho Code § 5-215 (2026)
Action on judgment or for mesne profits of real property.
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
IClegislature.idaho.gov
Justiaon Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Action on judgment or for mesne profits of real property.
Within eleven (11) years:
(1) An action upon a judgment or decree of any court of the United States, or of any state or territory within the United States.
(2) An action for mesne profits of real property.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 17
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1977–2023 · leading case: Allen F. Grazer v. Gordon A. Jones, 294 P.3d 184 (Idaho 2013).
Allen F. Grazer v. Gordon A. Jones, 294 P.3d 184 (Idaho 2013). “I.C. § 5-215. A judgment lien is distinct from the underlying judgment, and therefore the judgment does not expire merely because the lien has expired.”
Collection Bureau, Inc. v. Dorsey, 249 P.3d 1150 (Idaho 2011). “[4] Idaho Code § 5-215 provides, in pertinent part: Within six (6) years: 1.”
Stonecipher v. Stonecipher, 963 P.2d 1168 (Idaho 1998). “I.C. § 5-215. In 1988, however, the legislature significantly expanded the six-year statute of limitation to allow for an action or proceeding to collect child' support arrearages accrued under a support order within five years after the child reaches the age of majority.”
Attorney Gen. Ex Rel. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada v. Tysowski, 800 P.2d 133 (Idaho Ct. App. 1990). “1 The district court subsequently granted the Attorney General’s motion for summary judgment, ruling that the amended complaint “related back” to the date of the original pleading, and that the action to enforce the judgment was therefore timely filed within both the ten-year…”
Dumas v. Ropp, 558 P.2d 632 (Idaho 1977). “" The trial court, in its order granting respondents' motion for judgment, held that the action was barred by the provisions of I.”
G & R Petroleum, Inc. v. Clements, 898 P.2d 50 (Idaho 1995). “212 (1906) (involving an action on a foreign judgment brought under the predecessor of I.C. § 5-215). Although this avenue remains available, I.”
Thomas v. Goff, 596 P.2d 794 (Idaho 1979). “The trial court, after presentation of the evidence, entered findings of fact, conclusions of law and a decree wherein the court held that Daisy Janet Thomas’s claim to her interest in the real property was not barred by the provisions of I.C. § 5-215; that the homestead…”
Est. of Thompson v. Turner, 690 P.2d 925 (Idaho 1984). “§ 11-105, but they also appear to agree that a new and independent action on the judgment could be maintained within six years, under I.C. § 5-215. We hold that this is such an independent action, that it was timely filed and not subject to dismissal.”
W. Corp. v. Stan L. Vanek, 158 P.3d 313 (Idaho Ct. App. 2006). “Vanek filed a motion to dismiss, asserting that the nunc pro tunc date in the original judgment was controlling for purposes of determining accrual of the cause of action for revival, and consequently the current action was barred by the six-year statute of limitation for…”
Smith v. Smith, 964 P.2d 667 (Idaho Ct. App. 1998). “Here, although we find no legislative history to guide us, the object of § 10-1111 and its relationship to other legislation on the same subject lead us to reject Vernon’s interpretation.”
Annest v. Conrad-Annest, Inc., 690 P.2d 923 (Idaho 1984). “The orders of the district court cannot be considered to be nunc pro tunc, since they do not correct a “clerical error” but rather appear to substantially alter the nature and the effect of the judgment.”
Blanc v. Laritz, 806 P.2d 452 (Idaho Ct. App. 1991). “In 1988, Blanc filed a complaint under I.C. § 5-215 to recover the attorney fees and costs awarded him in the Order of October 21.”
— Idaho Code § 5-215(1) — 5 cases
Collection Bureau, Inc. v. Dorsey, 249 P.3d 1150 (Idaho 2011). “[4] Idaho Code § 5-215 provides, in pertinent part: Within six (6) years: 1.”
Thomas v. Goff, 596 P.2d 794 (Idaho 1979). “The trial court, after presentation of the evidence, entered findings of fact, conclusions of law and a decree wherein the court held that Daisy Janet Thomas’s claim to her interest in the real property was not barred by the provisions of I.C. § 5-215; that the homestead…”
W. Corp. v. Stan L. Vanek, 158 P.3d 313 (Idaho Ct. App. 2006). “Vanek filed a motion to dismiss, asserting that the nunc pro tunc date in the original judgment was controlling for purposes of determining accrual of the cause of action for revival, and consequently the current action was barred by the six-year statute of limitation for…”
Attorney Gen. Ex Rel. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada v. Tysowski, 800 P.2d 133 (Idaho Ct. App. 1990). “1 The district court subsequently granted the Attorney General’s motion for summary judgment, ruling that the amended complaint “related back” to the date of the original pleading, and that the action to enforce the judgment was therefore timely filed within both the ten-year…”
Bankers Life & Cas. Co. v. Gilmore (In re Gilmore), 141 B.R. 734 (Bankr. D. Idaho 1992).
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.