From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Garland v. Thielking

Court of Appeals of Iowa
Mar 13, 2002
No. 1-1002 / 00-1791 (Iowa Ct. App. Mar. 13, 2002)

Opinion

No. 1-1002 / 00-1791.

Filed March 13, 2002.

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Marshall County, CARL D. BAKER, Judge.

Judgment debtors appeal the grant of summary judgment in favor of judgment creditors in their action on a money judgment. AFFIRMED.

James Cook, West Des Moines, for appellants.

Robert Hanson of Hanson, Bjork Russell, Des Moines, for appellees.

Considered by HUITINK, P.J., and ZIMMER and VAITHESWARAN, JJ.


We are asked to review a ruling in an action to enforce a money judgment. Finding no error, we affirm.

I. Background Proceedings and Scope of Review

Dean Garland and Secure Beef, Ltd. obtained a money judgment against Stephen K. Thielking and John L. Henss. Twelve years later, the judgment creditors filed a "petition to renew judgment" against the judgment debtors and moved for summary judgment. The district court granted the motion and Thielking and Henss appealed. Our review of the district court's summary judgment ruling is for correction of errors of law. Howell v. Merritt Co., 585 N.W.2d 278, 280 (Iowa 1998).

II. Post-Judgment Remedies

A judgment creditor has a number of independent remedies to satisfy a money judgment. See Stefan A. Riesenfeld, Collection of Money Judgments in American Law, 42 Iowa L. Rev. 155, 156 (1957) (broadly categorizing collection remedies into executability, actionability, and lien creation). For ten years after entry of judgment, the judgment is a lien on real estate owned or later acquired by the defendants. Iowa Code § 624.23(1) (1999). During this period, the judgment creditor may sue to enforce the judgment lien. The ten-year period is not a statute of limitations but "a period of time within which a party, having obtained a judgment, may follow the defendant's real estate into the hands of grantees." Payette v. Marshall County, 180 Iowa 660, 664-665, 163 N.W. 592, 594 (1917). After ten years, the judgment creditor becomes unsecured. Id.; James v. Weisman, 161 Iowa 488, 492, 143 N.W. 428, 430 (1913).

Although the creditor can no longer enforce the original judgment lien, our law affords the creditor an additional ten years to attempt recovery on the judgment through other means. Iowa Code § 614.1(6); (prescribing twenty year statute of limitations for actions on a judgment); Chader v. Wilkins, 226 Iowa 417, 422, 284 N.W. 183, 186 (1939). One option available to the judgment creditor during this second ten-year period or, indeed, before, is to execute on the judgment. See generally Iowa Code chapter 626 (addressing writs of execution). A second option is to bring an independent action on the judgment. Iowa Code § 614.3. This second option allows the judgment creditor to obtain a new judgment lien and again become a secured creditor, even though the creditor's original judgment lien has expired. Whitters v. Neal, 603 N.W.2d 622, 624 (Iowa 1999); Wilkins, 284 N.W. at 186.

An action on the judgment may be filed at any time within the twenty year limitations period but requires court permission if filed sooner than nine years after the original judgment entry. Iowa Code § 614.3; Whitters, 603 N.W.2d at 624. To obtain this remedy, a judgment creditor must file an independent action. Id. A motion to renew the judgment filed in the original proceeding will not suffice. Id. at 625.

III. Application of Law to Facts

Garland and Secure Beef apparently did not seek to enforce the original judgment lien nor did they obtain a writ of execution on the original judgment. Instead, they elected to sue on the judgment to obtain a new lien. There is no question they timely filed the action. See Iowa Code § 614.1(6); Lackender v. Morrison, 231 Iowa 899, 904, 2 N.W.2d 286, 289 (1942) (noting limitations period apply to extensions or renewal of judgments, not to actions to enforce liens). The only question is whether they followed the proper procedures for obtaining a new lien.

The judgment debtors attempt to construe the pleading in this case as the type of "motion to renew judgment" that was rejected in Whitters. We agree with the district court that it is not. Garland and Secure Beef filed precisely what the statutory scheme authorizes: an independent action on the judgment. See Iowa Code § 614.3. As they followed the proper procedure for obtaining a new ten-year judgment lien, they were entitled to summary judgment.

In reaching this conclusion, we reject the judgment debtors' claim that this result would impermissibly allow judgment creditors to obtain and re-obtain secured status in perpetuity. We believe our legislature envisioned just this type of result. See Iowa Code § 614.3. Specifically, the fact that section 614.3 allows a judgment creditor to file suit on a judgment even before the original ten-year judgment lien expires means that a creditor could retain its secured status indefinitely and without any lapses.

We affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the judgment creditors.

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

Garland v. Thielking

Court of Appeals of Iowa
Mar 13, 2002
No. 1-1002 / 00-1791 (Iowa Ct. App. Mar. 13, 2002)
Case details for

Garland v. Thielking

Case Details

Full title:D. DEAN GARLAND and SECURE BEEF, LTD., A LIMITED PARTNERSHIP…

Court:Court of Appeals of Iowa

Date published: Mar 13, 2002

Citations

No. 1-1002 / 00-1791 (Iowa Ct. App. Mar. 13, 2002)