Opinion
No. 7-94-10504 MA, Adv. No. 97-1059 M.
May 21, 2007
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO RENEW JUDGMENT FOR SANCTIONS
THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Plaintiff's Motion to Renew Judgment for Sanctions (the "Motion") filed on November 13, 2006 by Plaintiff Yvette J. Gonzales, Chapter 7 Trustee, by and through her attorney, Clifford C. Gramer, Jr. The Motion seeks to renew the Judgment for Sanctions entered May 3, 2000 (Docket #109) in accordance with Rules 7064, 7069, Fed.R.Bankr.P., Rules 64 and 69, Fed.R.Civ.P., and N.M.S.A. 1978 §§ 39-1-6 and 39-1-20. The Court held a final hearing on the Motion on May 17, 2007 and took the matter under advisement.
Defendant Jerome Beery, pro se, objects to the Motion on grounds that the Judgment for Sanctions improperly awarded fees incurred in defending multiple appeals when, in fact the award should have only been for a single appeal. Defendant has unsuccessfully raised this argument in this Adversary Proceeding on two prior occasions. ( See Docket # 218 — Order Denying Defendant Jerome Griggs Beery's Oral Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment; and Docket #222 — Order Denying Jerome Griggs Beery's Motion to Reconsider). Defendant also asserts that he did not receive sufficient notice that Judgment for Sanctions would include fees incurred in several different appeals. This argument, raised seven years after the entry of the Judgment for Sanctions is untimely. The Judgment for Sanctions became a final, non-appealable order ten days after its entry on May 3, 2000. Defendants objections to the Motion, are, therefore, overruled.
Pursuant to Rule 69, Fed.R.Civ.P., made applicable to bankruptcy proceedings by Rule 7059, Fed.R.Bankr.P., the procedure on execution and in aid of a judgment is to be made in accordance with applicable state law. Under New Mexico law, judgments are valid for a period of seven years, and may be renewed within fourteen years of the date of the judgment. See N.M.S.A. 1978 § 39-1-20 and § 37-1-2 (Repl. Pamp. 2006). See also, Fischoff v. Tometich, 113 N.M. 271, 824 P.2d 1073 (Ct.App. 1991) (holding that § 37-1-2 "allows a judgment creditor to bring an action to revive a judgment for a period of fourteen years after its entry."). An action seeking to revive a judgment must be brought in accordance with the common law. Id. at 275. Under New Mexico common law, a judgment creditor seeking to revive a judgment must give notice to the judgment debtor. Bell v. Kyle, 33 N.M. 656, 274 P. 1068 (1929). Plaintiff served Defendant Jerome Beery with the Motion. Defendant does not contest that the Judgment on Sanctions remains wholly unpaid. The Motion was filed before the expiration of the seven-year period prescribed by N.M.S.A. 1978 § 39-1-2 and well within the fourteen year period prescribed by N.M.S.A. 1978 § 37-1-2. Revival of the judgment, is therefore, appropriate.
Those sections provide:
An execution may issue at any time, on behalf of anyone interested in a judgment, within seven years after the rendition or revival of the judgment. N.M.S.A. 1978 § 39-1-20 (Repl. Pamp. 2006)
Actions founded upon any judgment of any court of the state may be brought within fourteen years from the date of the judgment, and not afterward. N.M.S.A. 1978 § 37-1-2 (Repl. Pampl. 1990).
WHEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that the Motion to Renew Judgment for Sanctions is GRANTED. The Judgment for Sanctions, entered May 3, 2000, is hereby renewed for a period of seven years from May 3, 2007.