2019COA7. No. 17CA1423, Security Credit Services, LLC v. Hulterstrom Topical subject keywords Creditors and Debtors Judgements Judgement Liens

Similar documents
2018COA126. No. 17CA0741, Marchant v. Boulder Community Health Creditors and Debtors Hospital Liens Lien for Hospital Care

2018COA118. Nos. 18CA0664 & 18CA0665, People v. Soto-Campos & People v. Flores-Rosales Criminal Law Grand Juries Indictments Probable Cause Review

2018 CO 12. No. 16SC666, Oakwood Holdings, LLC v. Mortgage Investments Enterprises, LLC Foreclosure Redemption , C.R.S. (2017) Right to Cure.

2018COA44. No. 17CA0407, Minshall v. Johnston Civil Procedure Process Substituted Service

2019COA28. In this postconviction case, a division of the court of appeals. must determine whether a parolee who appeals his parole

2019COA24. A division of the court of appeals concludes that a certification. for involuntary short-term mental health treatment entered by a

COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS

2018COA31. A division of the court of appeals decides, as a matter of first. impression, whether a district court s power to appoint a receiver

COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS. Colorado Air Quality Control Commission; and Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment,

2018COA107. A division of the court of appeals considers whether the. district court may consider documents outside the bare allegations

COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS

St. James Place Condominium Association, a Colorado nonprofit corporation, JUDGMENT REVERSED AND CASE REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS

COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS

2018COA90. No. 16CA1787, People v. McCulley Criminal Law Sex Offender Registration Petition for Removal from Registry

2018COA59. As a matter of first impression, we adopt the reasoning of In re. Gamboa, 400 B.R. 784 (Bankr. D. Colo. 2008), abrogated in part by

2018COA78. A division of the court of appeals interprets Crim. P. 32(d), which allows a defendant to move to withdraw a plea of guilty or

2018COA30. No. 16CA1524, Abu-Nantambu-El v. State of Colorado. Criminal Law Compensation for Certain Exonerated Persons

2018COA74. No. 17CA0473, In the Interest of Spohr Probate Persons Under Disability Guardianship of Incapacitated Person Notice

2018COA182. No. 17CA2104, Trujillo v. RTD Government Colorado Governmental Immunity Act Immunity and Partial Waiver

2018COA48. No 16CA0826, People v. Henry Criminal Law Sentencing Restitution Crime Victim Compensation Board

16CA0940 Development Recovery v Public Svs

2017COA158. No. 16CA2158, Wells Fargo v. Olivas Taxation Sale of Tax Liens Tax Deed Notice Diligent Inquiry

COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS

2018COA62. No. 16CA0192 People v. Madison Crimes Theft; Criminal Law Sentencing Restitution. Pursuant to an agreement between the defendant and the

2018COA151. A division of the Colorado Court of Appeals considers the. district court s dismissal of a pretrial detainee s allegations that she

JUDGMENT VACATED. Division I Opinion by JUDGE ROMÁN Taubman and Booras, JJ., concur. Announced December 8, 2011

Cynthia F. Torp, Angel Investor Network, Inc., and Investors Choice Realty, Inc.,

-1- ANNOUNCEMENTS Colorado Court of Appeals May 31, 2018

2018COA143. No. 17CA1295, In re Marriage of Durie Civil Procedure Court Facilitated Management of Domestic Relations Cases Disclosures

COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS

COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS 2012 COA 6. Farm Deals, LLLP, Farms of Hasty, LLLP, Kindone, LLLP, and Vanman, LLLP,

ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS

COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS

2017COA143. No. 16CA1361, Robertson v. People Criminal Law Criminal Justice Records Sealing. In this consolidated appeal addressing petitions to seal

COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS

2018COA99. No. 17CA1635, Moore v CDOC Civil Procedure Correctional Facility Quasi-Judicial Hearing Review; Criminal Law Parole

COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS

JUDGMENT REVERSED AND CASE REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS. Division VI Opinion by: JUDGE CARPARELLI Webb and J. Jones, JJ., concur

City of Englewood, Colorado, a home rule city and a Colorado municipal corporation, JUDGMENT REVERSED AND CASE REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS

Shirley S. Joondeph; Brian C. Joondeph; and CitiMortgage, Inc., JUDGMENT REVERSED AND CASE REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS

ORDER AFFIRMED. Division VI Opinion by JUDGE LICHTENSTEIN Hawthorne and Booras, JJ., concur. Announced August 4, 2011

2019COA5. No. 18CA0885, People v. Salgado Government Department of Law Powers and Duties of Attorney General; Constitutional Law Separation of Powers

-1- ANNOUNCEMENTS Colorado Court of Appeals January 10, 2019

2018COA24. No. 16CA1643, People v. Joslin Criminal Procedure Postconviction Remedies Restitution Interest

2018COA anyone who signs a document is presumed to know its. 2. a cause of action accrues on the date when both the

JUDGMENT AFFIRMED AND CASE REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS. Division II Opinion by JUDGE WEBB Casebolt and Dailey, JJ., concur. Announced June 9, 2011

2018COA109. A division of the court of appeals concludes that a person who. has had property unlawfully seized by law enforcement officers, and

APPEAL DISMISSED. Division IV Opinion by JUDGE BERNARD Webb and Nieto*, JJ., concur

COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS 2013 COA 176

COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS

2018COA148. No. 17CA1663 Town of Monument v. State of Colorado Real Property Restrictive Covenants; Eminent Domain

-1- ANNOUNCEMENTS Colorado Court of Appeals October 4, 2018

CASE REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS. Division IV Opinion by: JUDGE TERRY Casebolt and Webb, JJ., concur. Announced: May 1, 2008

ORDER AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND CASE REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS

COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS

COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS 2012 COA 32

2019COA2. In this criminal case, a division of the court of appeals is. asked to decide whether a police officer is authorized to request that

COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS

2018COA159. A division of the court of appeals interprets section (2)(a), C.R.S. 2012, to mean that a trial court may only

ORDER AFFIRMED. Division I Opinion by JUDGE TERRY Taubman and Miller, JJ., concur. Announced August 18, 2011

Court of Appeals No.: 02CA0850 City and County of Denver District Court Nos. 99CR2558 & 99CR2783 Honorable Lawrence A.

U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N S

Illinois Official Reports

-1- ANNOUNCEMENTS Colorado Court of Appeals July 27, 2017

2018COA179. No. 15CA2010, People v. Jaeb Crimes Theft Evidence of Value; Evidence Hearsay Exceptions

OTERO V. DIETZ, 1934-NMSC-084, 39 N.M. 1, 37 P.2d 1110 (S. Ct. 1934) OTERO vs. DIETZ et al.

-1- ANNOUNCEMENTS Colorado Court of Appeals December 7, 2017

COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS. Reisbeck, LLC, properly known as Reisbeck Subdivision, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company; and Robert A.

JUDGMENT AND ORDER AFFIRMED. Division IV Opinion by: JUDGE VOGT Lichtenstein and Plank*, JJ., concur. Announced: August 7, 2008

District Attorney for the 18th Judicial District, State of Colorado, ORDER AFFIRMED

2018COA168. A criminal defendant and his trial counsel executed a fee. agreement providing that the representation of counsel terminates

2018COA175. No. 17CA0280, People v. Taylor Criminal Procedure Postconviction Remedies Successive Postconviction Proceedings

COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS

ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS

Case 1:12-cv GAO Document 17 Filed 03/21/13 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS CIVIL ACTION NO.

DISTRICT COURT CITY & COUNTY OF DENVER, COLORADO 1437 Bannock Street Denver, Colorado Plaintiff Appellee: SECURITY CAPITAL FUNDING CORP.

2019COA4. No. 17CA1678, People in Interest of G.S.S. Children s Code Juvenile Court Delinquency Bail Speedy Trial

2016 CO 3. No. 12SC916, Doubleday v. People Felony Murder Affirmative Defenses Duress

Westport Insurance Corporation and Horace Mann Insurance Company, JUDGMENT AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND CASE REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS

JUDGMENT REVERSED AND CASE REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS. Division I Opinion by: JUDGE TAUBMAN Márquez and J. Jones, JJ., concur. Announced: July 12, 2007

-1- ANNOUNCEMENTS Colorado Court of Appeals September 8, 2016

COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS. Eugene Kim, an individual, and Snell & Wilmer L.L.P., an Arizona limited liability partnership, ORDER REVERSED

The supreme court holds that section (10)(a) protects the records of a

-1- ANNOUNCEMENTS Colorado Court of Appeals December 31, 2014

2014 CO 9. No. 13SA123, In re People v. Steen Stay of Execution in County Court Section (6), C.R.S. (2013) Crim. P. 37(f).

ORDER AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND CASE REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS. Division V Opinion by: JUDGE CARPARELLI Vogt and J. Jones, JJ.

-1- ANNOUNCEMENTS Colorado Court of Appeals November 2, 2017

COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS 2012 COA 152

-1- ANNOUNCEMENTS Colorado Court of Appeals October 11, 2018

ANNOUNCEMENTS COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS September 15, 2005

-1- ANNOUNCEMENTS Colorado Court of Appeals January 24, 2019

COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS

-1- ANNOUNCEMENTS Colorado Court of Appeals August 4, 2016

Rule Change #1998(14)

COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS

NOTICE OF APPEAL. Plaintiff-Appellant John Cox, by and through his attorneys of record,

-1- ANNOUNCEMENTS Colorado Court of Appeals December 28, 2017

2018 CO 81. No. 16S721, Ybarra v. Greenberg & Sada, P.C. Finance, Banking, and Credit Insurance Statutory Interpretation Torts.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE April 12, 2016 Session

2019COA12. A division of the court of appeals considers whether the. district court erred in vacating a default judgment under C.R.C.P.

Transcription:

The summaries of the Colorado Court of Appeals published opinions constitute no part of the opinion of the division but have been prepared by the division for the convenience of the reader. The summaries may not be cited or relied upon as they are not the official language of the division. Any discrepancy between the language in the summary and in the opinion should be resolved in favor of the language in the opinion. 2019COA7 SUMMARY January 24, 2019 No. 17CA1423, Security Credit Services, LLC v. Hulterstrom Topical subject keywords Creditors and Debtors Judgements Judgement Liens The division holds that a judgment creditor may obtain a judgment lien at any time during the remaining life of the judgment, but if more than six years have passed since the entry of the judgment, the creditor must first revive the judgment and record the transcript of the revived judgment.

COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS 2019COA7 Court of Appeals No. 17CA1423 El Paso County District Court No. 10CV5060 Honorable Eric Bentley, Judge Security Credit Services, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Winifried Hulterstrom, Defendant-Appellee. ORDER REVERSED AND CASE REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS Division V Opinion by JUDGE BERGER Román and Richman, JJ., concur Announced January 24, 2019 Vargo & Janson PC, Gerald P. Vargo, Yosy V. Janson, Nick J. Deganhard, Lakewood, Colorado, for Plaintiff-Appellant No Appearance for Defendant-Appellee Notarianni & Notarianni, Gregory J. Notarianni, Denver, Colorado; Sweetbaum Sands Anderson P.C., Geoffrey P. Anderson, Denver, Colorado, for Amicus Curiae Real Estate Law Section of the Colorado Bar Association Philip J. Weiser, Attorney General, Kimberly S. Sorrells, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Denver, Colorado, for Amicus Curiae Colorado Department of Personnel and Administration

1 Can a judgment creditor obtain a judgment lien against real property when more than six years have passed since the entry of the judgment? If so, what must the creditor do to obtain such a lien? 2 We hold that a judgment creditor may obtain a judgment lien at any time during the remaining life of the judgment, but if more than six years have passed since the entry of the judgment, the creditor must first revive the judgment and record the transcript of the revived judgment. This is true whether or not the judgment creditor previously obtained a judgment lien. 3 Because the district court erroneously concluded that revival of the judgment was not required and denied the creditor s request to revive the judgment, we reverse the district court s order. I. Relevant Facts and Procedural Background 4 In 2010, the district court entered a money judgment in favor of plaintiff, Security Credit Services, LLC, against defendant, Winifried Hulterstrom. Security Credit obtained a transcript of the judgment, but it is not clear from the record whether Security Credit ever recorded the transcript of judgment and thus obtained a judgment lien on real property owned or later acquired by 1

Hulterstrom in the county in which the transcript was recorded. In any event, it appears that Security Credit never foreclosed that lien on any specific property. 5 In 2017, Marshall Recovery II LLC filed notice with the district court that it had purchased the money judgment from Security Credit. 1 Not long after that, but more than six years after the entry of judgment, Marshall moved under C.R.C.P. 54(h) to revive the judgment. The district court denied the motion, stating [t]he 6- year period [from the date of the judgment] expired on 10-13-16. 6 Marshall moved to reconsider, arguing that to obtain a new, valid judgment lien, it had to first revive the judgment. The district court denied this request a second time, stating as follows: C.R.S. 13-52-102(1) provides that a judgment lien expires six years after entry of judgment unless, prior to the expiration of the six-year period, the judgment is revived and a new transcript of judgment recorded. In this case, as previously noted, the judgment lien expired on 10-13-16. Accordingly, it is too late to continue the original lien. The judgment creditor may, if it wishes, record a new transcript of judgment, which will create a new lien, effective as of the date of recording. There 1 Though Security Credit assigned its rights to the judgment to Marshall, the caption in this case remained the same. See C.R.C.P. 25(c). 2

is no need to revive the judgment itself, since it is good for 20 years under C.R.S. 13-52-102(2) and reviving the judgment would not change the effect of the new lien. 7 In what Marshall describes as a last ditch-effort to obtain a revived judgment, it moved for a hearing on the motion to revive the judgment, which the district court denied. Marshall then timely filed this appeal. II. Standard of Review 8 We review matters of statutory interpretation de novo. Perfect Place, LLC v. Semler, 2018 CO 74, 40. Our primary purpose is to give effect to the intent of the General Assembly. Id. We look first to the language of the statute, giving words and phrases their plain and ordinary meanings. Id. We consider the statute as a whole and give consistent, harmonious, and sensible effect to all of its parts. Id. We apply the same rules of construction to the Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure. In re Marriage of Wiggins, 2012 CO 44, 24. 3

III. A Judgment Creditor May Obtain a Judgment Lien More Than Six Years After the Entry of Judgment, But Must Revive the Judgment to Do So 9 In Colorado, the exclusive method to obtain a judgment lien against real property based on a Colorado judgment is to record a transcript of the judgment in the records of the clerk and recorder of a Colorado county. 13-52-102(1), C.R.S. 2018. Once recorded, the transcript of judgment constitutes a lien on all real property owned, or later owned, in that county by the judgment debtor. Id. The priority date of the lien, for Recording Act purposes, is the date of recordation of the transcript of judgment; the date of the judgment itself has no bearing on the priority date. See 38-35- 109(1), C.R.S. 2018. 10 Under section 13-52-102(2)(a), a judgment has a life of twenty years. 2 A judgment lien has a life of six years from the date of the underlying judgment. 13-52-102(1). To extend an existing judgment lien, the judgment creditor must revive the judgment and record a transcript of the revived judgment before the existing lien expires. Id. 2 A judgment creditor may extend the life of a judgment by reviving the judgment. 13-52-102(2)(a), C.R.S. 2018. 4

11 These statutes do not explicitly address the questions raised here: (1) whether a judgment creditor may obtain a new judgment lien after a prior judgment lien has expired; (2) whether a judgment creditor may obtain a judgment lien after six years have elapsed since the entry of judgment and no judgment lien was previously obtained; and (3) if the answer is yes to those questions, whether the judgment creditor must first revive the underlying judgment. 12 Both a state statute and a rule of civil procedure bear on these questions. Section 13-52-102 says, in relevant part: (1)... A transcript of the judgment record... may be recorded in any county; and from the time of recording such transcript... the judgment shall become a lien upon all the real estate... owned by such judgment debtor or which such judgment debtor may afterwards acquire in such county, until such lien expires. The lien of such judgment shall expire six years after the entry of judgment unless, prior to the expiration of such six-year period, such judgment is revived as provided by law and a transcript of the judgment record of such revived judgment... is recorded in the same county in which the transcript of the original judgment was recorded, in which event the lien shall continue for six years from the entry of the revived judgment. A lien may be obtained with respect to a revived judgment in the same manner as an original judgment and the lien of a revived judgment may be continued in the 5

same manner as the lien of an original judgment.... (2)(a)... [E]xecution may issue on any judgment described in subsection (1) of this section to enforce the same at any time within twenty years from the entry thereof, but not afterwards, unless revived as provided by law, and, after twenty years from the entry of final judgment in any court of this state, the judgment shall be considered as satisfied in full, unless so revived. 13 C.R.C.P. 54(h) says, in relevant part: To revive a judgment a motion shall be filed alleging the date of the judgment and the amount thereof which remains unsatisfied.... A revived judgment must be entered within twenty years after the entry of the judgment which it revives, and may be enforced and made a lien in the same manner and for like period as an original judgment. If a judgment is revived before the expiration of any lien created by the original judgment, the filing of the transcript of the entry of revivor in the register of actions with the clerk and recorder of the appropriate county before the expiration of such lien shall continue that lien for the same period from the entry of the revived judgment as is provided for original judgments. Revived judgments may themselves be revived in the manner herein provided. 14 Read together, these provisions provide that a creditor may obtain a judgment lien at any time during the twenty-year life of a 6

judgment, but if more than six years have passed since the entry of judgment, the creditor must first revive the judgment. 15 The plain language of section 13-52-102(2)(a) execution may issue... to enforce the [judgment] at any time within the twenty-year life of the judgment compels the conclusion that a judgment creditor may obtain a judgment lien at any time during that period, even after an original judgment lien has expired. 3 (Emphasis added.) Notably, while both section 13-52-102 and C.R.C.P. 54(h) contemplate that a judgment may be enforced at any time during its life, neither contains any language prohibiting a judgment creditor from obtaining a judgment lien after an initial judgment lien has expired, but before the end of the judgment s twenty-year life. 16 Section 13-52-102(1) expressly and unambiguously provides that a judgment lien expires six years after the entry of the judgment (not the date of issuance or recordation of any transcript 3 For purposes of our analysis, there is no distinction between (1) a judgment creditor obtaining a new judgment lien after a prior judgment lien has expired and (2) a judgment creditor obtaining a judgment lien more than six years from the date of judgment when no prior judgment lien has been obtained. 7

of judgment). Therefore, the recordation of a transcript of judgment, without more, after the expiration of the six-year period, accomplishes nothing because any such lien has expired. 17 This dilemma is solved if, but only if, the creditor revives the judgment prior to recordation of the transcript of judgment. In that event, the lien created by the recordation of the transcript of the revived judgment is valid for six years from the date of the revived judgment. 4 IV. Conclusion 18 The order denying Marshall s motion for revival of judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded for the district court to address that motion. JUDGE ROMÁN and JUDGE RICHMAN concur. 4 If the creditor records a transcript of judgment within six years of the date of the judgment, a judgment lien is created. That lien expires six years from the date of the judgment, unless, before the expiration of the six-year period, the creditor revives the judgment, obtains a transcript of judgment of the revived judgment, and records the transcript. In that event, the revived judgment lien maintains the original priority date of the originally recorded transcript of judgment because it is a continuation of the initial judgment lien, rather than a new lien. See 13-52-102(1); C.R.C.P. 54(h). 8