Massachusetts General Laws

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 235, § 17 (2026)

Executions; time for issuing; successive executions; entry of satisfactions

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MAmalegislature.gov (official) JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Section 17. An original execution shall not issue after the expiration of one year after the party is first entitled to take it out; and an alias or other successive execution shall not issue after the expiration of five years from the return day of that which preceded it. Subject to section twenty of chapter two hundred and sixty, alias or successive executions shall be of full force and effect for five years from the date thereof unless satisfied in whole or discharged by law. All executions shall be returned to the court issuing them within ten days after their satisfaction or discharge. If any execution is returned for any reason to the court issuing the same unsatisfied in whole or in part, the court may, subject to the provisions of this section, order the issue of a new execution for the amount then remaining due.

If an execution having been satisfied in full or discharged by law is not returned within ten days thereafter with an endorsement showing such satisfaction or discharge or is returned without such endorsement the court issuing it may upon motion of the judgment debtor or any person in his behalf order it to be returned or the proper endorsement made thereon, as the case may be. The court may order the return of an execution and the endorsement of any partial satisfaction thereon. The fact of a return of an execution and its satisfaction shall be entered upon the records of the court.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 12 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1930–2024 · leading case: Slive & Hanna, Inc. v. Massachusetts Comm'n Against Discrimination & Another., 178 N.E.3d 407 (Mass. App. Ct. 2021).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Slive & Hanna, Inc. v. Massachusetts Comm'n Against Discrimination & Another., 178 N.E.3d 407 (Mass. App. Ct. 2021). · cites it 4× “"Generally, executions under [G. L. c. 235, § 17,] are issued not by express judicial order but by ministerial action of the court's officers.”

First Nat'l Bank v. Bernier, 741 N.E.2d 95 (Mass. App. Ct. 2001). “The debtors argue that the allowance of the motion is in direct contravention of G. L. c. 235, § 17, which prohibits an original execution from being issued more than one year after final judgment has been entered.”

LaChance v. Peerless Ins., 632 N.E.2d 856 (Mass. App. Ct. 1994). · cites it 2× “236, § 3, and that the sheriff’s return of execution was untimely under G. L. c. 235, § 17. A Land Court judge rendered a decision and judgment for the defendant, and the plaintiff has appealed.”

Orange Hardware Co. v. Ryan, 172 N.E. 654 (Mass. 1930). “” G. L. c. 235, § 17, as amended by St. 1925, c.”

Ellis v. Lyford, 169 N.E. 800 (Mass. 1930). “” G. L. c. 235, § 17, as amended by St. 1925, c.”

Mashpee Wampanoag Rod & Gun Club v. Garvey, 1999 Mass. App. Div. 224 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div. 1999). · cites it 2× “This appeal raises the issue of whether the District Court has the authority and discretion to issue executions after one year from the date of judgment under M.G.L.c. 235, §§17 and 19. We believe it does.”

Mont v. Encompass Ins., 32 Mass. L. Rptr. 39 (Mass. Super. Ct. 2014). · cites it 2× “Section 19 first explains how a judgment creditor may go about obtaining an execution against a judgment debtor, even if the judgment creditor previously failed to obtain the execution within the one-year period proscribed by G.L.c. 235, §17. Section 19 then goes on to state…”

Lewis Beef Co. v. Zhong Shu Guo, 2005 Mass. App. Div. 138 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div. 2005). · cites it 2× “Lewis Beef did not seek an execution on this second judgment within the one-year time limit mandated by G.L.c. 235, §17. In a memorandum submitted in opposition to Lewis Beefs motion to issue execution late, Guo indicates that he filed a Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Petition in the…”

Sterling Eng'g & Constr. Co. v. City of Taunton, 9 Mass. L. Rptr. 101 (Mass. Super. Ct. 1998). · cites it 3× “The defendant, City of Taunton, opposes the motion on the grounds that issuance of an execution in these circumstances is barred by G.L.c. 235, §17. For the reasons stated below, plaintiffs motion is denied.”

Pine Tree Vill. Residents Ass'n, Inc. v. Sandra Almeida & Others. (Mass. App. Ct. 2023). “See G. L. c. 235, § 17. The agreement provided for the execution to issue on April 1, 2020.”

Fort Point Investments, LLC v. Kirunge-Smith (Mass. App. Ct. 2024). “22 One such statute is G. L. c. 235, § 17, which provides in part: "An original execution shall not issue after the expiration of one year after the party is first entitled to take it out; and an alias or other tolled by a court-filed agreement or a judge's order is a question…”

Krulewich, Casher, P.C. v. Stefano Picciotto & Others. (Mass. App. Ct. 2024). “0 The defendants appeal from a Superior Court judge's allowance, pursuant to G. L. c. 235, § 17 (section 17), of the plaintiff's verified motion for issuance of an alias 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.