Producers Grain Corp. v. Carroll, No. 47931

• Court: United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma
• Writing for the Court: BOX; REYNOLDS, P.J., and ROMANG
• Citation: 546 P.2d 285
• Parties: PRODUCERS GRAIN CORPORATION, Appellant, v. J. D. CARROLL, Jr., Appellee
• Docket Number: No. 47931,No. 1
• Decision Date: 13 January 1976

Page 285

546 P.2d 285 PRODUCERS GRAIN CORPORATION, Appellant,
v.
J. D. CARROLL, Jr., Appellee. No. 47931. Court of Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. 1. Jan. 13, 1976.
Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Appeals
Feb. 5, 1976.

Dale & Wright by Vincent Dale, Guymon, and Underwood, Wilson, Sutton, Berry, Stein & Johnson by A. W. SoRelle III, Amarillo, Tex., for appellant.

Frank E. Hensely, Guymon, for appellee.

BOX, Judge:

An appeal by Producers Grain Corporation, plaintiff in the trial court, from an order of the District Court of Texas County entering judgment in favor of appellee J. D. Carroll, Jr.

The question presented is whether the statute of limitations applicable to suits on foreign judgments, 12 O.S.1971, § 95 (Second), also governs foreign judgment enforcement proceedings under the Oklahoma Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act, 12 O.S.1971, § 719 et seq. We hold that it does not and accordingly reverse the judgment below in favor of a judgment debtor.

Producers Grain Corporation (Producers) obtained a foreign judgment against J. D. Carroll, Jr. (Carroll) on February 2, 1970. The judgment was subsequently filed with the Clerk for the District Court of Texas County, Oklahoma on September 6, 1973, in accordance with the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act, 12 O.S.1971, § 719 et seq. (hereinafter cited as the Revised Act). In response, Carroll filed a motion to strike the judgment on the ground that it was barred by the statute of limitations applicable to actions on foreign judgments, 12 O.S.1971, § 95 (Second). Thereafter the parties executed and filed written stipulations of fact which, in substance, provided that Carroll was in fact a judgment debtor, that all jurisdictional prerequisites (except the one at issue) to perfecting judgment had been followed by Producers, and that the judgment was entitled to be enforced unless enforcement was barred by the delay of more than three years in filing the judgment with the Clerk.

The trial court ruled that a foreign judgment enforcement proceeding under the Act was governed by the three year statute of limitations and consequently, that Producers' right to enforce the judgment was forfeited by its delay in filing. The trial court reasoned as follows:

'It would appear to this Court that it would be inconceivable that a party trying to proceed on a foreign judgment in the State of Oklahoma could elect to proceed by filing an action in this state or proceed under the Oklahoma Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act and thus be able to elect the statute of limitations that should apply.

'It is therefore the position of this Court that in either case the three year statute of limitations as set out in Title 12, Section 95, applies, and that therefore, since the plaintiff herein did not proceed to perfect said judgment in the State of Oklahoma within a period of three years after the judgment was taken in theState of Texas, that the same is thereby barred, and judgment is therefore entered for the defendant.'

I.

This question has not previously been resolved either in Oklahoma or in any of the other states which have adopted the 1964 revised version of the Act. We think it necessary, therefore, to consider first the legislative...