Investors Title Insurance Co. v. Herzig, 793 N.W.2d 371

Southeastern sued to collect a 1989 North Carolina judgment against David F. Herzig in North Dakota via the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act.
The North Carolina judgment was filed in North Dakota in 1998 and renewed in 2000; enforcement activity continued thereafter.
In 2010, while related appeals (Herzig I and II) were pending, Herzig moved to purge the judgment as unenforceable due to expiration.
The district court held it retained jurisdiction to rule on the purge motion and: the judgment expired January 10, 2010, and enforcement period was not tolled.
Southeastern argued the pendency of the appeals divested the district court of jurisdiction; Herzig argued jurisdiction remained.
The court ultimately held the North Carolina judgment is no longer enforceable in North Dakota.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the district court retain jurisdiction to rule on the purge motion during appeals?	Southeastern: jurisdiction divested by pending appeals.	Herzig: jurisdiction remains; collateral matters may proceed.	District court retained jurisdiction to rule on purge judgment.
Is the 1989 North Carolina judgment enforceable after expiration, and can tolling apply?	Southeastern seeks tolling due to Herzig's actions and pendency of appeals.	Herzig: no tolling; judgment expired; no tolling statutes apply.	Judgment expired and is no longer enforceable; no tolling recognized under circumstances.

Union Nat Bank v. Ryan, 23 N.D. 482, 137 N.W. 449 (N.D. 1912) (absence from state tolls execution lien; ten-year limitation continues)
Berg v. Torgerson, 100 N.W.2d 153 (N.D. 1959) (execution within statutory period does not extend lien beyond limit)
Siewert v. Siewert, 758 N.W.2d 691 (N.D. 2008) (post-judgment proceedings treated as separate; enforcement may occur separately)
Merchants’ National Bank v. Braithwaite, 7 N.D. 358, 75 N.W. 244 (N.D. 1898) (lien and limitation period principles for judgment enforcement)