State v. Golden, 2011 ND 5

Southeastern Shelter obtained a 1989 North Carolina judgment against Herzig for $149,598.13, later transcribed and filed in North Dakota for enforcement under the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act.
The North Carolina judgment was renewed in 2000 and refiled in North Dakota; enforcement efforts followed for years, referenced in related North Dakota appeals (Herzig I and Herzig II).
In 2010, while those appeals were pending, Herzig and Alphild Herzig’s estate personal representative moved to purge the judgment as unenforceable due to expiration under North Dakota law.
The district court ruled that it retained jurisdiction to hear the purge motion and that the North Carolina judgment expired on January 10, 2010, and was unenforceable in North Dakota.
Southeastern challenged jurisdiction and argued tolling; the court rejected tolling, concluding no statutory basis tolled the enforceability period, and affirmed the purge judgment ruling.
The appellate court affirmed, holding the underlying foreign judgment no longer enforceable in North Dakota.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court had jurisdiction to rule on the purge judgment during pendency of the appeals	Southeastern argued jurisdiction was divested by pending appeals in Herzig I/II.	Herzig and the estate contended the district court could adjudicate collateral matters tied to enforcement while appeals were ongoing.	District court retained jurisdiction.
Whether the 1989 North Carolina judgment expired and became unenforceable under ND law	Southeastern asserted tolling extended enforceability due to Herzig’s actions and the appeals.	Herzig argued no tolling applicable under the circumstances.	Judgment expired and was unenforceable.
Whether tolling applies to extend the enforcement period under ND § 28-20-35 in this context	tolling due to actions and pending appeals could extend enforceability.	No tolling recognized by the record or statute in these facts.	No tolling recognized; must cancel after statutory period.
Whether the law-of-the-case or other authorities support tolling in this scenario	Southeastern relies on various authorities to toll the period.	No applicable tolling authorities supported by the record.	No tolling recognized; statutory period runs unmodified.
Whether the rule requiring cancellation after the statutory period applies to the present case	Argues tolling or extensions could keep the judgment alive.	No tolling; must cancel once the period ends.	Statutory cancellation required; judgment unenforceable.

Union Nat. Bank v. Ryan, 137 N.W. 449 (N.D. 1912) (absence from state tolls execution lien status; dormant but not extended)
Berg v. Torgerson, 100 N.W.2d 153 (N.D. 1959) (execution during statutory period does not extend lien beyond statutory limit)
Depositors’ Holding Co. v. Winschel, 232 N.W. 599 (N.D. 1930) (lien duration governed by statute; enforcement must occur within period)
Merchants’ Nat’l Bank v. Braithwaite, 75 N.W.244 (N.D. 1908) (enforcement timelines governed by statutory limitation)