Indiana Court Approves Of Filing New Lawsuit To Renew Judgment Lien
Lesson. If judgment creditors seek to extend a judgment lien beyond ten years, then a fresh “renewal complaint” should be filed.
Case cite. Autovest, L.L.C. v. Abner, 245 N.E.3d 193 (Ind. Ct. App. 2024)
Legal issue. Whether a second cause of action, pertaining to the same debt owed by a judgment debtor, should be dismissed.
Vital facts. In 2023, Creditor filed a “renewal complaint” against Debtor in connection with an unpaid judgment that Creditor had obtained against Debtor in 2014. The “practical effect” of the cause of action was to secure a second ten-year judgment lien against Debtor’s real estate.
Procedural history. The trial court dismissed the complaint. The court reasoned that Creditor should have filed a motion to renew in the original case, as opposed to a separate cause of action. Creditor appealed.
Key rules. Indiana case law provides that creditors may (and arguably should) “renew” their judgments before the expiration of the ten-year lien expiration period to preserve the lien. Cases further hold that creditors should initiate “a new case alleging that it owns the judgment at issue.” This, in turn, will enable the creditor to obtain a second judgment lien (i.e. extend the lien).
Holding. The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s dismissal of the renewal complaint.
Policy/rationale. The Court’s rationale was that Creditor acted within its rights by filing a lawsuit against Debtor under a new cause number (i.e. a new lawsuit as opposed to a motion for proceedings supplemental within the prior lawsuit). The opinion is short and to the point.
Autovest, decided by the Court of Appeals in October 2024, goes hand-in-hand with the Court’s February 2024 opinion in Chitwood v. Guadagnoli, 230 N.E.3d 932 (Ind. Ct. App. 2024), about which I wrote later that year: Expired Judgment Lien Must Be Renewed Before Foreclosure Can Occur.
(As an aside, for the real nerds out there, neither Autovest nor Chitwood directly addressed the issue of the priority in title of the renewed lien. That is, whether intervening liens that attached to the debtor’s real estate within the original 10-year period effectively leapfrog the judgment creditor’s “new” lien. Reading between the lines of the two opinions, it would seem so, but I can think of arguments against such an outcome, too. An issue for another day perhaps…)
Related posts. My prior content can be found using the search button on the top right corner of this page. In addition to the link about related to Chitwood, the following posts are particularly relevant:
- Indiana Judgment Lien (10 Years) and Judgment Enforcement (20 Years) Statutes Of Limitation
- Judgment Lien Principles Courtesy Of The Indiana Supreme Court
- Sampling Of Indiana Deed Law, And Judgment Lien Attachment Issues
- Indiana Court Finds That Ex-Wife Held A Judgment Lien, Not A Security Interest, On Ex-Husband’s Farm
- Indiana Judgment Liens On Real Estate In Revocable Trusts
Part of my practice involves the enforcement of judgments. If you need assistance with a similar matter, please call me at 317-639-6151 or email me at john.waller@dinsmore.com. Also, don’t forget that you can follow me on X @JohnDWaller or on LinkedIn, or you can subscribe to posts via email as noted on the bottom of this page.