Indiana Code

Ind. Code § 34-55-1-2 (2026)

Issuance after lapse of ten years

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaInd. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

     Sec. 2. (a) After the lapse of ten (10) years after:

(1) the entry of judgment; or

(2) issuing of an execution;

an execution can be issued only on leave of court, upon motion, after ten (10) days personal notice to the adverse party, unless the adverse party is absent or a nonresident, or cannot be found.

     (b) When an execution is issued on leave of court under subsection (a), service of notice may be made by publication, as in an original action, or in a manner as the court directs. Leave shall not be given unless it is established by the oath of the party or other satisfactory proof that the judgment or part of the judgment remains unsatisfied and due.

[Pre-1998 Recodification Citation: 34-1-34-2.]

As added by P.L.1-1998, SEC.51.

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 2000–2025 · leading case: Lewis v. Rex Metal Craft, Inc., 831 N.E.2d 812 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005).
Lewis v. Rex Metal Craft, Inc., 831 N.E.2d 812 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 18× “Ind.Code § 34-55-1-2 (emphasis added). Because proceedings supplemental are a continuation of the original action, rather than an "action" on a judgment of a court of record, they are not subject to the ten-year statute of limitations within Indiana Code Section 34-11-2-11.”
Arend v. Etsler, 737 N.E.2d 1173 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 3× “Code § 34-55-9-2; see also Ind.Code § 34-55-1-2. Furthermore, when a judgment has been entered and indexed, it is not a warning of a lien to come, but it is from that very moment a judgment lien.”
House v. First Am. Title Co., 883 N.E.2d 197 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 2× “I.C. § 34-55-1-2. 4 . Security Title’s brief also addresses negligence and statutory claims that House has not asserted in his amended complaint; therefore, we need not address those arguments.”
Austin v. Niblick, 626 F. App'x 167 (7th Cir. 2015). “1997) (concluding that party is barred from executing on judgment after ten years because such execution requires leave of court, see Ind.Code § 34-55-1-2 (formerly § 34-1-34-2), and requesting leave of court is an action on the judgment within the scope of § 34-11-2-11).”
Converging Capital LLC. v. Kevin B Steglich (Ind. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 8× “Ind. Code § 34-55-1-2 ; Williams v. Lyddick, 116 Ind.”
Barbara Chitwood v. John Guadagnoli (Ind. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 6× “I.C. § 34-55-1-2; See, e.g., I.C. § 34-55-1-3(1) (one of three kinds of execution of judgments is execution against property of judgment debtor); Williams v.”
H&s Fin. Inc Assignee of Absolute Resolutions Corp. Assignee of C1 v. Donald Parnell (Ind. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 2× “[14] The Lewis Court examined Indiana Code Section 34-55-1-2, entitled “Issuance after lapse of ten years,” which provides that, after the lapse of ten years after the entry of judgment or issuance of an execution, an execution can be issued only on leave of court.”
Dealer Servs. Corp. v. Albertson (Del. Super. Ct. 2024). · cites it 2× “25 Compare Ind. Code § 34-55-1-2 with 10 Del. C. § 4711(b).”
Autovest, LLC v. John Bach (Ind. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 2× “2024) (citing Ind. Code § 34-55-1-2 (1998)). [9] Another panel of this Court recently issued an opinion in a separate but similar case where Autovest was also the appellant.”
— Ind. Code § 34-55-1-2(a) — 2 cases
Converging Capital LLC. v. Kevin B Steglich (Ind. Ct. App. 2024). “Ind. Code § 34-55-1-2 ; Williams v. Lyddick, 116 Ind.”
Barbara Chitwood v. John Guadagnoli (Ind. Ct. App. 2024). “I.C. § 34-55-1-2; See, e.g., I.C. § 34-55-1-3(1) (one of three kinds of execution of judgments is execution against property of judgment debtor); Williams v.”
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.