UNIFUND CCR PARTNERS ASSIGNEE OF CITIBANK (SOUTH DAKOTA) N.A., Appellant,
WILLIAM O. ABRIGHT, Respondent.
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF RALLS COUNTY The Honorable David C.
Fischer, Chief Justice
CCR Partners, Assignee of Citibank (South Dakota) N.A.,
appeals a judgment overruling Unifund's motion for
revival of a judgment on grounds it was filed out of
time. Unifund timely filed its motion to revive
the judgment within ten years of the last payment of the
debtor's garnished wages into the circuit court's
registry. The judgment is reversed, and the case is
and Procedural Background
28, 2005, the circuit court entered a default judgment in
favor of Unifund and against William Abright for $18, 143.41
plus interest from the date of the judgment. Unifund served
garnishments on Albright's employer, who paid the
garnished funds into the circuit court registry. The last
payment into the circuit court's registry was made July
17, 2017, Unifund filed a Rule 74.09 motion for revival of
the judgment against Abright. The circuit court issued a show
cause order to Abright, held a hearing, and overruled
Unifund's motion as untimely. The circuit court overruled
Unifund's motion to set aside the order overruling the
motion for revival of the judgment. Unifund appeals.
only issue on appeal is whether the circuit court properly
applied the law governing motions to revive judgments. This
purely legal issue is reviewed de novo. Crockett
v. Polen, 225 S.W.3d 419, 420 (Mo. banc 2007).
motion to revive was timely
sole point on appeal asserts the circuit court erred by
overruling the motion to revive the judgment as untimely.
Unifund argues its motion was filed timely within ten years
of the date of the last payment duly entered on the trial
court's record as required by §
516.350.1 and Rule 74.09.
516.350.1 provides judgments are presumed paid and satisfied
ten years after entry of the judgment unless revived by
personal service on the defendant or, if a payment has been
made, "ten years from the last payment so
made." For purposes of § 516.350.1,
"judgments are conclusively presumed paid ten years
after they were originally rendered unless a party has
revived the judgment or entered a payment upon the
record." Pirtle v. Cook, 956 S.W.2d 235, 238
(Mo. banc 1997). Garnished wages paid into the court's
registry are a "payment" that "effectively
revives the judgment" pursuant to § 516.350 if
entered on the record within ten years of the judgment.
Crockett, 225 S.W.3d at 420-21. Therefore, the July
26, 2007 payment into the circuit court's registry
resulting from the garnishment of Abright's wages
effectively revived the June 25, 2005 judgment and commenced
a new ten year period for purposes of § 516.350.1.
74.09 establishes the procedure for reviving a judgment. Rule
74.09(a) provides: "A judgment may be revived by order
of the court that entered it pursuant to a motion for revival
filed by a judgment creditor within ten years after entry of
the judgment or the last prior revival of the
judgment." (Emphasis added). The "last prior
revival of the judgment" was on July 26, 2007, when a
payment was made and entered upon the record pursuant to the
wage garnishment. Consequently, Unifund's July 17, 2017
motion to revive the judgment was filed timely within ten
years of the "last prior revival of the judgment"
on July 26, 2007. The circuit court erred by overruling the
Unifund's motion to revive the judgment as untimely.
judgment is reversed, and ...