SE Property Holdings, LLC v. Campbell
Filing
99
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER, 63 Motion to Revive Judgment is GRANTED as set out, & the judgment entered 9/9/13 in favor of Plf & against Dft in the amount of $317,135.00 is REVIVED. Signed by District Judge Terry F. Moorer on 4/1/24. (tot)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
RADIANCE CAPITAL RECEIVABLES )
TWELVE, LLC,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
JOHN F. CAMPBELL,
)
)
Defendant.
)
CIV. ACT. NO. 1:13-cv-238-TFM-C
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Radiance Capital Receivables Twelve, LLC’s
Motion to Revive Judgment (Doc. 63), supported by affidavits (Docs. 79, 80), in which Plaintiff
seeks to revive a judgment entered on September 9, 2013, against Defendant John F. Campbell in
the amount of $317,135.00 (Doc. 19). According to the motion and affidavits, Plaintiff has not
collected any monies from the Defendant or third parties toward the judgment and the judgment
remains unsatisfied.
Alabama Code § 6-9-190 allows a judgment to be revived within 20 years from the entry
of the judgment. Alabama Code §6-9-191 presumes a judgment is satisfied if 10 years have lapsed
since judgment or the latest execution, stating as follows:
If 10 years have elapsed from the entry of the judgment without issue of execution
or if 10 years have elapsed since the date of the last execution issued, the judgment
must be presumed satisfied, and the burden of proving it not satisfied is upon the
plaintiff.
Plaintiff filed its motion and affidavits to revive prior to the expiration of the ten-year
period. While the motion was pending, the ten-year revival period lapsed. On July 31, 2023, the
Page 1 of 3
Court held a telephone conference with the parties during which it ordered Defendant to file a
response to the motion on or before August 11, 2023. Doc. 78. Rather than file a response,
Defendant filed a suggestion of bankruptcy on August 11, 2023. Docs. 82, 83. This matter,
including the pending motion to revive judgment, was stayed as a result of the Defendant’s pending
bankruptcy matter. See Doc. 91. On January 5, 2024, Radiance Capital filed a Motion to Lift Stay
to Revive the Judgment. Doc. 95. Attached to the motion was an order from the bankruptcy court
authorizing the lift of the bankruptcy stay “for the limited purpose of completing a revival of its
judgment.” Doc. 95-1. Accordingly, on January 5, 2024, this Court granted the motion and again
ordered Defendant to file a response on or before January 22, 2024. Doc. 96. Defendant still has
not filed a response. On February 21, 2024, this Court entered a text order granting Plaintiff’s
motion to revive the judgment, with written opinion to follow. Doc. 97. This is that written
opinion.
No Alabama case addresses whether the filing of the motion to revive a judgment prior to
the expiration of the ten-year revival period suspends the running of the statute of limitations if the
court does not rule on the motion within the ten-year period. Other state courts which have
addressed this issue have held that an order of revival is valid where the culmination of proceedings
is brought within the period of limitation. See e.g. Mouton v. Watson, 500 So. 2d 792, 793 (La.
App. 1st Cir. 1986) (judgment was not prescribed where revival action was filed within
prescription period despite order reviving judgment signed after lapse of prescription period);
Kelly v. City of Cape Girardeau, 89 S.W.2d 693 (Mo. App. 1936) (statute creating presumption of
payment of judgment after ten years not only serves to extend time for issuance of execution, but
also permits extension of vitality of judgment by bringing of action thereon short of accrual of
limitation); Crye v. Edwards, 873 P.2d 665, 667 (Ariz. App. 1st Div. 1993) (evidence established
Page 2 of 3
that creditor was engaged in effort to renew judgment prior to lapse).
This Court finds that Plaintiff commenced the revival proceedings within the ten-year
period of limitation, and a ruling on same was continued over, after the expiration of the
prescriptive period, without fault of the judgment creditor because of the mandatory automatic
stay. Thus the motion is timely, and there is no presumption of satisfaction of the judgment such
that the judgment may be revived. The Defendant has put forth no evidence, by affidavit or
otherwise, showing that the judgment has been satisfied.
Accordingly, the Motion to Revive Judgment (Doc. 63) is GRANTED, and it is
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that the judgment entered September 9, 2013, in
favor of Plaintiff and against the Defendant in the amount of $317,135.00, is hereby REVIVED.
DONE and ORDERED this the 1st day of April 2024.
s/Terry F. Moorer
TERRY F. MOORER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Page 3 of 3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?