{¶ 1} Columbus Check Cashers, Inc. (“appellant”) appeals from a judgment of the Franklin County Municipal Court denying its motion to revive a dormant judgment. Angela L. Cary (“appellee”) did not file a brief in the present appeal. Upon reviewing the pertinent statutes and case law, we reverse the judgment and remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this decision.
{¶ 2} On March 31, 2003, appellant obtained judgment in the municipal court, against appellee, in the amount of $847.75, plus interest at the rate of ten percent per annum and court costs. Appellant did not execute upon the judgment and, after five years, the judgment became dormant pursuant to R.C. 2329.07(A)(1). On May 7, 2010, appellant filed a motion to revive the dormant judgment, along with a conditional order of revivor, incorporating by reference the judgment entered in its favor on March 31, 2003. On June 10, 2010, the trial court entered a decision denying appellant’s motion to revive the dormant judgment because (1) the conditional order did not specify the amount of the original judgment and (2) the plaintiff failed to attach documentation showing the amount of the original judgment.
{¶ 3} Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal on June 23, 2010, and set forth the following assignment of error for our consideration:
The trial court erred in denying the appellant’s May 7, 2010, motion to revive dormant judgment.
{¶ 4} “Revivor of a dormant judgment is a statutory proceeding.” Thomas K. Dillon, M.D., Inc. v. Four Dev. Co., 6th Dist. No. L-04-1384,
{¶ 5} A municipal court is authorized to revive judgments pursuant to R.C. 1901.13(A)(2), which states:
In any action or proceeding of which a municipal court has jurisdiction, the court or any judge of the court has the power to do all of the following:
(2) Issue any necessary orders in any proceedings before and after judgment, for * * * revivor of judgment.
{¶ 6} “Inasmuch as the procedure to revive judgments is not set forth in R.C. 1901.01 to 1901.37, pursuant to R.C. 1901.21(A), the procedure is the same as in the court of common pleas.” Heselden Plumbing Co. v. Justice (Mar. 13, 1986), 10th Dist. No. 85AP-733,
{¶ 7} Generally, there are two types of revivors: (1) revivor of actions where a party dies or becomes incompetent, requiring that another party be substituted in its place, and (2) revivor of judgments becoming dormant pursuant to R.C. 2329.07(A)(1), requiring no party substitution. Civ.R. 25 governs the procedure for the former type of revivor,
{¶ 8} R.C. 2329.07(A)(1) addresses the time in which a judgment becomes dormant:
If neither execution on a judgment rendered in a court of record or certified to the clerk of the court of common pleas in the county in which the judgment was rendered is issued, nor a certificate of judgment for obtaining a lien upon lands and tenements is issued and filed, as provided in sections 2329.02 and 2329.04 of the Revised Code, within five years from the date of the judgment or within five years from the date of the issuance of the last execution thereon or the issuance and filing of the last such certificate, whichever is later, then, unless the judgment is in favor of the state, the judgment shall be dormant and shall not operate as a lien upon the estate of the judgment debtor.
{¶ 9} R.C. 2325.15 addresses the procedures set forth for reviving dormant judgments:
When a judgment, including judgments rendered by a judge of a county court or mayor, a transcript of which has been filed in the court of common pleas for execution, is dormant, or when a finding for money in equitable proceedings remains unpaid in whole or in part, under the order of the court therein made, such judgment may be revived, or such finding made subject to execution as judgments at law are, in the manner prescribed for reviving actions before judgment, or by action in the court in which such judgment was rendered or finding made, or in which transcript of judgment was filed.
{¶ 10} R.C. 2325.17 addresses when a judgment can be considered revived and the time frame in which a lien attaches to a judgment debtor’s property, once a dormant judgment is revived. It provides:
If sufficient cause is not shown to the contrary, the judgment or finding mentioned in section 2325.15 of the Revised Code shall stand revived, and thereafter may be made to operate as a lien upon the lands and tenements of each judgment debtor for the amount which the court finds to be due and unsatisfied thereon to the same extent and in the same manner as judgments or findings rendered in any other action.
(Emphasis added.)
{¶ 11} In the present matter, the sole issue before this court is whether R.C. 2325.15 and/or 2325.17 should be interpreted to require the judgment creditor to provide the trial court with specific information, in the conditional order of revivor, regarding the amount due and owing upon the original judgment, or whether reference to the judgment of record stands sufficient for the judgment to be revived.
{¶ 12} We begin with the principle that “[w]here the language of a statute is plain and unambiguous and conveys a clear and definite meaning there is no occasion for resorting to rules of statutory interpretation. An unambiguous statute is to be applied, not interpreted.” Sears v. Weimer (1944),
{¶ 13} Here, R.C. 2325.15 plainly states that a court may revive a dormant judgment “[1] in the manner prescribed for reviving actions before judgment, or [2] by action in the court in which such judgment was rendered or finding made, or [3] in which transcript of judgment was filed.” In the present matter, the record reflects that appellant, pursuant to R.C. 2325.15, filed a motion to revive dormant judgment, along with a conditional order of revivor, in the Franklin County Municipal Court, where judgment was originally rendered on March 31, 2003.
{¶ 14} Further, R.C. 2325.17 plainly states that “[i]f sufficient cause is not shown to the contrary, the judgment or finding mentioned in section 2325.15 of the Revised Code shall stand revived, and thereafter may be made to operate as a lien upon the lands and tenements of each judgment debtor for the amount which the court finds to be due and unsatisfied thereon to the same extent and in the same manner as judgments or findings rendered in any other action.”
{¶ 15} In its entry dated June 10, 2010, the trial court cites R.C. 1901.49 [sic] as the reason for its holding that “the court must make a finding as to how much is owed on the dormant judgment.” After a thorough search of the Ohio Revised Code, it appears that R.C. 1901.49 does not exist. However, we believe that the trial court intended to cite R.C. 1907.49, which governs the procedure for reviving dormant judgments in county courts. R.C. 1907.49 states that “[a] judgment that is rendered by a judge of a county court and that is dormant, may be revived in the manner prescribed for reviving dormant judgments in the court of common pleas. If sufficient cause is not shown to the contrary, the judgment shall stand revived for the amount that the judge finds to remain due and unsatisfied upon it.”
{¶ 16} As stated above, R.C. 1901.21(A) “mandates a ‘gap filler’ rule to be followed in civil cases in which general procedural rules are absent or, at least, in doubt.” Toledo Edison Co. v. Allen (1983),
{¶ 18} Therefore, R.C. 2325.15 and/or 2325.17, as written, do not require the judgment creditor to provide proof, at the time of revivor, regarding the amount due and unsatisfied on the original judgment. Nor do the statutes require the trial court to supplant the original judgment on record with a new judgment at the time of revivor. Finally, R.C. 2325.15 and/or 2325.17 do not require the trial court to make a finding as to the amount still due and unsatisfied on the original judgment.
{¶ 19} In Bartol v. Eckert (1893),
{¶ 20} Notwithstanding the foregoing, this court does share the concern of the trial court that judgment creditors not take advantage of judgment debtors and that revived judgments facilitate recovery of an accurate amount due and unsatisfied. Thus, it is important to note that judgment creditors must take additional steps, subsequent to the revivor of judgment, in order to properly execute upon the property of the judgment debtor. In Thompson v. Slone (1991),
{¶ 21} R.C. 2329.02, regarding judgment liens, states that “[a]ny judgment or decree rendered by any court of general jurisdiction * * * shall be a lien upon lands and tenements of each judgment debtor * * * from the time there is filed * * * a certificate of such judgment, setting forth the court in which the same was rendered, the title and number of the action, the names of the judgment creditors and judgment debtors, the amount of the judgment and costs, the rate of interest, if the judgment provides for interest, and the date from which such interest accrues, the date of rendition of the judgment, and the volume and page of the journal entry thereof.” (Emphasis added.)
{¶ 22} Further, R.C. 2716.05, regarding garnishment of personal earnings, states that in a court order and notice of garnishment, the order must disclose that “[t]he total probable amount now due on this judgment is $__The total probable amount now due includes the unpaid portion of the judgment in favor of the judgment creditor, which is $_; interest on that judgment and, if applicable, prejudgment interest relative to that judgment at the rate of -% per annum payable until that judgment is satisfied in full; and court costs in the amount of $__”
{¶ 23} Therefore, although a judgment creditor is not required to specify the amount of the original judgment in its conditional order of revivor, the Ohio Revised Code does mandate disclosure of the specific amount due and unsatisfied in order to file a judgment lien and/or garnish the personal earnings of a judgment debtor, subsequent to reviving the dormant judgment.
{¶ 24} Having sustained appellant’s sole assignment of error, we reverse the judgment of the Franklin County Municipal Court and remand this cause for further proceedings in accordance with law and consistent with this decision.
Judgment accordingly.
Notes
. In Leroy Jenkins Evangelistic Assn., Inc. v. Equities Diversified, Inc. (1989),