North Dakota Century Code

N.D. Cent. Code § 28-20-35 (2026)

Cancellation of judgment of record

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ND-LEGndlegis.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

1. For judgments initially docketed before August 1, 2021, after ten years after the entry of a judgment that has not been renewed, or after twenty years after the entry of a judgment that has been renewed, the judgment must be canceled of record.

2. For judgments initially docketed on or after August 1, 2021, after twenty years after the entry of a judgment is docketed, the judgment must be canceled of record. \n

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 9 cases, 1992–2013 · leading case: Fuson v. Schaible, 494 N.W.2d 593 (N.D. 1992).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Fuson v. Schaible, 494 N.W.2d 593 (N.D. 1992). · cites it 16× “Vicki contends that she was prejudiced by the late assertion of the defense since she could not test it against N.”

Smith v. Baumgartner, 2003 ND 120 (N.D. 2003). · cites it 8× “As applied to the facts of this case, RURESA's choice of law provision requires that North Dakota law be applied to enforce Baumgartner's child support arrearages.”

Blomdahl v. Blomdahl, 2011 ND 78 (N.D. 2011). · cites it 12× “1-05 (stating judgments for child support may not be canceled under N.D.C.C. § 28-20-35); see also Richter v.”

Ruscheinsky v. Ulrich, 2000 ND 133 (N.D. 2000). · cites it 18× “[¶ 9] Ordered, due and unpaid child support, therefore, falls into one of four historical categories: (1) before March 23, 1987, ordered child support that was due and unpaid did not constitute a judgment until adjudicated through a motion proceeding or separate action, and was…”

Investors Title Ins. Co. v. Herzig, 793 N.W.2d 371 (N.D. 2011). · cites it 8× “” Rather, Southeastern argues that the time period for enforcing the judgment under N.D.C.C. § 28-20-35 should be tolled for a “reasonable amount of time” because of Herzig and the personal representative’s actions and the pendency of the appeals in Herzig I and Herzig II.”

F/S Mfg. v. Kensmoe, 798 N.W.2d 853 (N.D. 2011). · cites it 4× “On April 4, 2008, F/S Manufacturing’s judgment against Kensmoe was cancelled of record under N.D.C.C. § 28-20-35. On March 8, 2010, almost two years after the 1998 judgment was can- *855 celled, F/S Manufacturing filed an affidavit attempting to renew the judgment under N.”

State v. Golden, 2011 ND 5 (N.D. 2011). · cites it 6× “” Rather, Southeastern argues that the time period for enforcing the judgment under N.D.C.C. § 28-20-35 should be tolled for a “reasonable amount of time” because of Herzig and the personal representative’s actions and the pendency of the appeals in Herzig I and Herzig II .”

State v. Rogers, 2011 ND 104 (N.D. 2011). · cites it 2× “On April 4, 2008, F/S Manufacturing’s judgment against Kensmoe was cancelled of record under N.D.C.C. § 28-20-35. On March 8, 2010, almost two years after the 1998 judgment was cancelled, F/S Manufacturing filed an affidavit attempting to renew the judgment under N.”

Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Halvorson, 2013 ND 216 (N.D. 2013). · cites it 2× “II [¶ 4] The duration of a judgment in North Dakota is governed by N.D.C.C. § 28-20-35: After ten years after the entry of a judgment that has not been renewed, or after twenty years after the entry of a judgment that has been renewed, the judgment must be canceled of record.”

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.