Costaras v, Costaras, No. 1 CA-CV 23-0286 (App., Div. I, March 7, 2024) (J. Williams)

IF LAWS OF STATE OF RENDITION OF A REVIVED JUDGMENT TREAT REVIVIED JUDGMENT AS A NEW JUDGEMENT ARIZONA'S FOREIGN JUDGEMENT LIMITATION STATUTE BEGINS TO RUN ON DATE OF REVIVED JUDGMENT

 Husband and wife divorce in Ohio. There is litigation resulting in a judgment against husband for $166,150.38 including $53,899.60 for spousal support.  Husband moves to Arizona. Over four years later, wife domesticates the Ohio Judgement in Arizona pursuant to the Full Faith and Credit

Clause of the United States Constitution, U.S. Const. art. 4, § 1, and A.R.S. § 12-544(3). In response to a writ of garnishment, husband moves to vacate asserting the four year statute of limitations contained in Arizona's Foreign Judgment Limitations Act A.R.S. § 12-544(3). The Arizona Court of Appeals vacated the judgment as untimely except for the $53,899.60 as the statute exempts a judgment for support from its application.

Wife then goes back to Ohio and obtains a revived judgment for the same amounts, domesticates it in Arizona four months later and garnishes husband again.  Husband argues the statute of limitations runs from the date of the first judgment, the revived judgment is not a new judgment and therefore the revived judgment must be vacated and the writ of garnishment quashed. The trial court agreed with husband vacating the domestication and quashing the writ.  The Arizona Court of Appeals vacated and remanded.

We hold that if the laws of the state of rendition treat a revived

judgment as a new judgment, Arizona's foreign judgment

limitation statute begins to run anew with the revived judgment.

Here, because Ohio law treats a revived judgment as a new

judgment, A.R.S. § 12-544(3) began to run anew with the

issuance of the revived judgment by the Ohio court.