unenforceable - Inapplicable to municipalities or child support judgments. A. A judgment shall become unenforceable and of no effect if, within five (5) years after the date of filing of any judgment that now is or may hereafter be filed in any court of record in this state: 1. Execution is not issued by the court clerk and filed with the county clerk as provided in Section 759 of this title; 2. A notice of renewal of judgment substantially in the form prescribed by the Administrative Director of the Courts is not filed with the court clerk; 3. A garnishment summons is not issued by the court clerk; or 4. A certified copy of a notice of income assignment is not sent to a payor of the judgment debtor. B. A judgment shall become unenforceable and of no effect if more than five (5) years have passed from the date of: 1. The last execution on the judgment was filed with the county clerk; 2. The last notice of renewal of judgment was filed with the court clerk; 3. The last garnishment summons was issued; or 4. The sending of a certified copy of a notice of income assignment to a payor of the judgment debtor. C. This section shall not apply to judgments against municipalities or to child support judgments by operation of law. R.L. 1910, § 5153. Amended by Laws 1981, c. 120, § 1, eff. Oct. 1, 1981; Laws 1988, c. 22, § 1, eff. Nov. 1, 1988; Laws 1989, c. 236, § 5, eff. July 1, 1989; Laws 1997, c. 320, § 3, eff. Nov. 1, 1997;
Laws 2000, c. 384, § 1, eff. Nov. 1, 2000; Laws 2002, c. 468, § 4, eff. Nov. 1, 2002.
Notes of Decisions
Hub Partners XXVI, Ltd. v. Barnett, 2019 OK 69, 453 P.3d 489.
· cites it 9× “Barnett objected to the execution arguing the judgment was dormant pursuant to 12 O.S., § 735, since more than five years had passed and Hub had not renewed the judgment.”
Chandler-Frates & Reitz v. Kostich, 630 P.2d 1287 (Okla. 1981).
· cites it 7× “The issue on appeal is whether a judgment has become dormant pursuant to 12 O.S.1971 § 735 1 for failure to issue execution on it within five years of the last execution.”
Nichols v. Nichols, 2009 OK 43, 222 P.3d 1049.
· cites it 3× “[22] The wife renewed the counsel-fee award in accordance with the provisions of 12 O.S.Supp. 2002 § 735. [23] Federal jurisprudence holds that property which has been impressed with a constructive trust for the benefit of another is not deemed the property of the bankrupt's…”
Neil Acquisition, L.L.C. v. Wingrod Inv. Corp., 932 P.2d 1100 (Okla. 1996).
“The terms of 12 O.S.1991 § 735, the so-called "dormancy statute”, provide: If execution is not issued and filed as provided in Section 759 of this title or a garnishment summons is not issued by the court clerk within five (5) years after the date of any judgment that now is or…”
First of Denver Mortg. Investors v. Riggs, 692 P.2d 1358 (Okla. 1984).
· cites it 3× “Creditor presents several lines of argument to sustain its contention that the district court erred in holding that the Colorado judgment was dormant under the Oklahoma dormancy statute, 12 O.S.1981, § 735. Creditor argues that if § 735 applies, then the actions taken to enforce…”
State ex rel. Oklahoma Tax Comm'n v. Emery, 645 P.2d 1048 (Okla. Civ. App. 1982).
· cites it 2× “1971, § 92, and the dormancy statute, 12 O.S.1971, § 735. Unless a statute specifically provides otherwise, statutes of limitation do not apply to the state when it is suing in its sovereign capacity.”
Drllevich Constr., Inc. v. Stock, 1998 OK 39, 958 P.2d 1277.
· cites it 2× “, subject to Oklahoma’s dormancy statute, 12 O.S.1991 § 735, to the extent that it would bar enforcement of the registered judgment in Oklahoma?” We hold enforcement is not barred by the dormancy statute.”
Rodgers v. Higgins, 871 P.2d 398 (Okla. 1994).
“1991 § 735 are: “If execution is not issued and filed as provided in Section 759 of this title or a garnishment summons is not issued by the court clerk within five (5) years after the date of any judgment that now is or may hereafter be rendered in any court of record in this…”
Bank of the Panhandle v. Hill, 1998 OK CIV APP 140, 965 P.2d 413.
· cites it 2× “1991 § 686 more than five years after foreclosure; 3) whether the dormancy statute, 12 O.S.1991 § 735, is applicable to 12 O.”
Pan Energy v. Martin, 813 P.2d 1142 (Utah 1991).
“See Okla.Stat.Ann. tit. 12, § 735 (West 1988) (dormancy statute).”
State ex rel. Commissioners of Land Off. v. Keller, 264 P.2d 742 (Okla. 1953).
· cites it 2× “2d 370, 371 , that: “A mere decree of foreclosure is not such a judgment as would become dormant unless execution was ' issued as required by 12 O.S.1941 § 735.” The above 'rule was in effect at the time the sheriff’s sale to the Commissioners- was confirmed.”
Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 735(A): 2 cases
Hub Partners XXVI, Ltd. v. Barnett, 2019 OK 69, 453 P.3d 489.
“Barnett objected to the execution arguing the judgment was dormant pursuant to 12 O.S., § 735, since more than five years had passed and Hub had not renewed the judgment.”
Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 735(A)(2): 1 case
Nichols v. Nichols, 2009 OK 43, 222 P.3d 1049.
“[22] The wife renewed the counsel-fee award in accordance with the provisions of 12 O.S.Supp. 2002 § 735. [23] Federal jurisprudence holds that property which has been impressed with a constructive trust for the benefit of another is not deemed the property of the bankrupt's…”
Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 735(A)(4): 1 case
Hub Partners XXVI, Ltd. v. Barnett, 2019 OK 69, 453 P.3d 489.
“Barnett objected to the execution arguing the judgment was dormant pursuant to 12 O.S., § 735, since more than five years had passed and Hub had not renewed the judgment.”
Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 735(C): 1 case
Hub Partners XXVI, Ltd. v. Barnett, 2019 OK 69, 453 P.3d 489.
“Barnett objected to the execution arguing the judgment was dormant pursuant to 12 O.S., § 735, since more than five years had passed and Hub had not renewed the judgment.”
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.