419 P.3d 217
Okla.2018Background
- In 2007 Taracorp obtained a Colorado default judgment against Dailey for roughly $152,791.00.
- Taracorp filed that Colorado judgment in Pottawatomie County, Oklahoma, three days later but took no further enforcement action and the case was effectively abandoned.
- In 2016 (about nine years after the Colorado judgment), Taracorp re-filed the original Colorado judgment in Marshall County, Oklahoma.
- Dailey moved to quash, arguing Oklahoma's five-year dormancy statute (12 O.S. § 735) made the domesticated filing unenforceable.
- Taracorp argued the Colorado judgment remains enforceable because Colorado law allows domestic enforcement for twenty years, and a valid out-of-state judgment may be re-filed in Oklahoma.
- The Oklahoma Supreme Court held that a foreign (Colorado) judgment that remains valid and enforceable in its issuing state may be enforced in Oklahoma even if Oklahoma’s five-year dormancy period lapsed on an earlier Oklahoma filing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a Colorado judgment that remains enforceable in Colorado (20-year period) can be re-filed and enforced in Oklahoma after an earlier Oklahoma filing became dormant under Oklahoma's 5-year statute | Colorado law gives the judgment a 20-year enforcement window; if the underlying foreign judgment is still valid in Colorado, re-filing in Oklahoma is permissible | Once a domesticated foreign judgment becomes dormant under Oklahoma law, re-filing in a different Oklahoma county cannot revive enforceability | Court held the judgment may be enforced in Oklahoma so long as it remains valid/enforceable in Colorado; Oklahoma’s 5-year dormancy on the earlier filing does not preclude a later filing while the foreign judgment remains enforceable in its originating state |
Key Cases Cited
- First of Denver Mortg. Investors v. Riggs, 692 P.2d 1358 (Okla. 1984) (early Oklahoma approach treating registration as creating a local judgment and running local dormancy from original rendition date)
- Drllevich Constr., Inc. v. Stock, 958 P.2d 1277 (Okla. 1998) (overruled Riggs; held registration should be treated to effectuate uniformity—focus on enforceability in originating state)
- Pan Energy v. Martin, 813 P.2d 1142 (Utah 1991) (registration of foreign judgment creates a new local judgment and is governed by local enforcement procedures)
- Bianchi v. Bank of Am., 186 P.3d 890 (Nev. 2008) (holding a judgment revived and still enforceable in the issuing state may be re-filed and enforced in the foreign jurisdiction)
- Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Kopeman, 226 P.3d 1068 (Colo. 2010) (enforcing an out-of-state judgment in Colorado where the originating state's renewal made it enforceable)
- Watkins v. Conway, 385 U.S. 188 (U.S. 1966) (Full Faith and Credit principles: a plaintiff must be able to revive the judgment in the issuing state to avoid a forum statute barring enforcement)
- Worthington v. Miller, 727 P.2d 928 (Kan. Ct. App. 1986) (Colorado judgment revived in origin state was enforceable when brought to Kansas despite Kansas' five-year limitation)