Missouri Supreme Court to consider statute of limitations for reviving a judgment.
October 31, 2018
Unifund obtained a judgment against Mr. Abright, and began collecting the judgment through garnishment of Mr. Abright’s wages. In July 2017, after no payments had been received for almost 10 years, Unifund filed a motion to revive the judgment. The circuit court denied that motion on the grounds that it was untimely.
Unifund appealed to the Eastern District, which found that it was the date of the initial judgment – not the date of the last garnished payment – which determined the 10-year statute of limitations for revival.
Unifund sought transfer, arguing that the Eastern District’s decision conflicted with those of both other appellate districts as well as the Supreme Court’s own decisions.
The Court’s acceptance of transfer means that it will consider how long a judgment creditor can wait before seeking to revive a judgment which has not been fully satisfied.