Knott v. LVNV Funding, LLC
2014 Del. LEXIS 293
| Del. | 2014Background
- Default judgment entered in 2003 against Knott in the Court of Common Pleas in favor of LVNV Funding, LLC.
- Judgment transferred to the Superior Court in 2004.
- Creditor moved to refresh the judgment in 2012 after not pursuing execution for about nine years.
- Knott argued § 5072 (five-year window) acts as a statute of limitations prohibiting execution after five years.
- The Commissioner recommended refreshing the judgment; the Superior Court granted the motion, holding § 5072 ambiguous and permitting refreshment.
- Court discussed interplay with § 4711 and § 5073, concluding no statute of limitations on judgments and affirming the refreshment under § 5072.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does §5072 act as a statute of limitations or a mechanism to refresh? | Knott contends §5072 is a five-year statute of limitations. | LVNV argues §5072 is not a statute of limitations and supports refreshing after five years. | §5072 ambiguous; not a strict statute of limitations; refreshment proper |
| Should §5073 have governed the case instead of §5072? | Knott argues §5073 likewise imposes a five-year limit. | Creditor argues §5073 does not alter the refreshment approach and may require scire facias. | Waived by Knott; remedy under §5072 affirmed |
| What is the effect of §5072 when the judgment originated in Court of Common Pleas and was moved to Superior Court? | Knott asserts five-year window applies to all judgments. | Creditor argues motion to refresh is appropriate; §5072 governs timing, not a hard deadline. | Refreshment permitted under §5072 even after five years |
| How do §5072 and §4711 interact in this context? | Knott contends potential misuse of §4711 to extend limits. | Court did not rely on §4711 to define ambiguity; §5072 alone was considered. | §5072 read as ambiguous; §4711 not controlling here |
| Is there a broader policy impact on the notion of no statute of limitations on judgments? | Knott argues potential conflict with no limitations on judgments. | Creditor argues tradition of refreshing aligns with statute’s intent to broaden collection. | Consistent with long-standing interpretation that there is no statute of limitations on judgments; refreshment valid |
Key Cases Cited
- Gamles Corp. v. Gibson, 939 A.2d 1269 (Del. 2007) (no statute of limitations on judgments; twenty-year presumption applies to payment)
- Guayaquil & Quito Railway Co. v. Suydam Holding Corp., 132 A.2d 60 (Del. 1957) (Delaware does not have a statute of limitations on judgments; rebuttable presumption of payment after twenty years)
- Delaware Bay Surgical Servs., P.C. v. Swier, 900 A.2d 646 (Del. 2006) (questions of statutory interpretation reviewed de novo; no automatic limitations on judgments)