Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Unifund CCR Partners Assignee of Citibank (South Dakota) N.A. v. Abright

Supreme Court of Missouri, En Banc

February 13, 2019

UNIFUND CCR PARTNERS ASSIGNEE OF CITIBANK (SOUTH DAKOTA) N.A., Appellant,
v.
WILLIAM O. ABRIGHT, Respondent.

          APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF RALLS COUNTY The Honorable David C. Mobley, Judge

          Zel M. Fischer, Chief Justice

         Unifund 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.[1] 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 remanded.[2]

         Factual and Procedural Background

         On June 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 26, 2007.

         On 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.

         Standard of Review

         The 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).

         Unifund's motion to revive was timely

         Unifund's 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[3] and Rule 74.09.

         Section 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."[4] 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.

         Rule 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.

         Conclusion

         The judgment is reversed, and ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.