Mississippi Code

Miss. Code Ann. § 89-5-19 (2026)

When a lien appears by the record to be barred, it ceases

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaMiss. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Where the remedy to enforce any mortgage, deed of trust, or other lien on real or personal property which is recorded, appears on the face of the record to be barred by the statute of limitations (which, as to a series of notes or a note payable in installments, shall begin to run from and after the maturity date of the last note or last installment), the lien shall cease and have no effect as to creditors and subsequent purchasers for a valuable consideration without notice, unless within six (6) months after such remedy is so barred the fact that such mortgage, deed of trust, or lien has been renewed or extended be entered on the margin of the record thereof, by the creditor, debtor, or trustee, attested by the clerk, or a new mortgage, deed of trust, or lien, noting the fact of renewal or extension, be duly filed for record within such time. If the date of final maturity of such indebtedness so secured cannot be ascertained from the face of the record the same shall be deemed to be due one (1) year from the date of the instrument securing the same for the purpose of this section. And where a suit shall have been brought to keep a judgment alive within seven (7) years from the rendition of such judgment, the general lien of such judgment shall expire as to creditors and subsequent purchasers for a valuable consideration, without notice, at the end of seven (7) years from the rendition of such judgment, notwithstanding such suit to keep alive the judgment unless a notation to keep alive such judgment shall be made on the judgment roll within six (6) months after the expiration of seven (7) years from the time of the rendition of such judgment.

Codes, 1892, § 2462; 1906, § 2796; Hemingway's 1917, § 2297; 1930, § 2154; 1942, § 875; Laws, 1896, ch. 98; Laws, 1956, ch. 215; Laws, 1958, ch. 271, § 1; Laws, 1960, ch. 223.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1992–2022 · leading case: Shutze v. Credithrift of Am., Inc., 607 So. 2d 55 (Miss. 1992).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Shutze v. Credithrift of Am., Inc., 607 So. 2d 55 (Miss. 1992). · cites it 6× “Nor does Miss. Code Ann. § 89-5-19 (1972) embarrass what we say, as from the face of the record Shutze's April 8, 1981, note and the lien securing same, renewal or no, are alive and well.”

Bank of Mississippi v. Knight (In Re Knight), 208 F.3d 514 (5th Cir. 2000). “Miss. Code Ann. § 89-5-19 . Since Knight did not answer the second suit to renew the 1988 judgment, although he was properly served, the Bank took another default judgment against him on August 22, 1995.”

Magnolia Fed. Bank for Sav. v. United States, 42 F.3d 968 (5th Cir. 1995). “Miss.Code Ann. § 89-5-19 (emphasis added).”

Downing v. Reliant Loan Servicing, LLC (Bankr. N.D. Miss. 2022). “##END OF OPINION## 47 48 at *2 (citing Miss. Code Ann. § 89-5-19 ). 49 , No. 3:17-CV-832-DPJ-FKB, 2018 WL 2449180 , at *5 (citing , No.”

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.