863 S.E.2d 652
N.C. Ct. App.2021Background:
- Michigan courts entered a divorce judgment (Dec. 29, 2003) and a supplemental money judgment (Oct. 12, 2009) in favor of Lauri Nielson against Raymond Schmoke for $1,323,096.31.
- Plaintiff enrolled those Michigan judgments in North Carolina under the UEFJA on June 28, 2013 and served notice; the clerk and later the NC trial court recognized them and entered a North Carolina judgment (Aug. 12, 2015) giving them full faith and credit.
- Plaintiff pursued enforcement and began supplemental post-judgment discovery in 2019; clerks entered orders compelling production from Defendant and his spouse.
- Defendant moved to abate post-judgment proceedings (Dec. 2019) arguing the 10-year enforcement period expired (at latest Oct. 2019) based on the Michigan supplemental-judgment date.
- The trial court (Mar. 18, 2020) relied on Asterbadi, held the 10-year enforcement period began when the foreign judgments were filed in NC (June 28, 2013), denied the abatement, and ordered discovery; Defendant appealed.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding filing under the UEFJA produces a North Carolina judgment for enforcement purposes and the NC 10-year period runs from the filing date.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 10-year NC enforcement period runs from the date the foreign judgment was entered in the rendering state or from the date it was filed/enrolled in NC under the UEFJA | Nielson: Filing/enrollment in NC creates a new NC judgment; the NC 10-year enforcement period begins on the filing date (June 28, 2013) | Schmoke: Enforcement period runs from the original Michigan entry (at latest Oct. 12, 2009) and thus expired Oct. 2019 | Court held filing under the UEFJA creates a NC judgment for enforcement; the 10-year period runs from the filing date (June 28, 2013), so enforcement had not expired; affirmed denial of abatement and compelled discovery |
Key Cases Cited
- Wells Fargo Equip. Fin., Inc. v. Asterbadi, 841 F.3d 237 (4th Cir. 2016) (registration under § 1963 gives registered judgment the effect of a new judgment in the registration forum so the forum’s enforcement period begins on registration)
- DOCRX, Inc. v. EMI Servs. of N.C., LLC, 367 N.C. 371, 758 S.E.2d 390 (N.C. 2014) (explains UEFJA procedure and purpose; filing provides streamlined enforcement similar to federal practice)
- Home Port Rentals, Inc. v. Int’l Yachting Grp., Inc., 252 F.3d 399 (5th Cir. 2001) (when a federal judgment is registered in another district the registration state’s limitation law governs enforcement and runs from registration)
- Pan Energy v. Martin, 813 P.2d 1142 (Utah 1991) (filing a foreign judgment in the forum creates a new local judgment for enforcement purposes)