 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Abba Equipment Inc. v. Thomason5/3/1999
Appeal From Greenville County Larry R. Patterson, Circuit Court Judge
Heard March 9, 1999
AFFIRMED
Abba Equipment, Inc. attempted to file in South Carolina a Florida judgment against Ralph Thomason, pursuant to the Uniform Enforcement of Judgments Act (UEFJA), S.C. Code Ann. § 15-35-900 et seq. (Supp. 1998). Thomason objected to the filing. Abba moved to enforce the judgment. The trial Judge denied the motion. Abba appeals. We affirm.
FACTUAL/PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Abba obtained a default judgment against Thomason in Florida for $31,015.95 with interest accruing at 12%. The order was dated April 15, 1983, and recorded on May 6, 1983. On December 23, 1996, Abba filed the Florida judgment and supporting affidavit with the Greenville, South Carolina, Clerk of Court. Thomason objected to the filing, arguing he had resided in South Carolina since 1984, and the ten year statute of limitations, S.C. Code Ann. § 15-3-600 (1976), therefore barred prosecution of the action. Abba then moved to enforce the foreign judgment. In a supporting affidavit, Abba's president asserted it did not discover that Thomason had moved to South Carolina until May or June of 1996 and that it did not know where Thomason was from the time it obtained its judgment until the time it discovered Thomason resided in South Carolina.
Thomason did not offer any affidavits to support his objection to the filing of the foreign judgment. At the hearing, however, the trial Judge allowed Thomason and his nephew, Bo Barrett, to testify as to Thomason's residency in this state. Thomason testified that he moved to Hilton Head, South Carolina, on December 5, 1984. He stated he obtained a South Carolina driver's license in 1984 or 1985. He also asserted his South Carolina and federal tax returns showed his South Carolina address beginning in 1985.
Relying on Payne v. Claffy, 281 S.C. 385, 315 S.E.2d 814 (Ct. App. 1984), the trial Judge held the ten year statute of limitations of § 15-3-600 applied to an action to enforce a foreign judgment. He held the Legislature did not abrogate the application of this statute of limitations to the enforcement of foreign judgments by enacting the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act. Accordingly, the ten year statute of limitations applied to Abba's action and its motion to enforce the judgment was denied.
ISSUES
Abba raises three issues on appeal. It contends the trial Judge erred in (1) applying the limitations period of § 15-3-600 to the UEFJA; (2) failing to apply the discovery rule to the limitations period of § 15-3-600; and (3) allowing live testimony to be presented in opposition of Abba's motion to enforce the foreign judgment.
LAW/ANALYSIS
1. Application of § 15-3-600 to the UEFJA
Abba argues the trial Judge erred in applying the limitations period of S.C. Code Ann. § 15-3-600 (1976) to the UEFJA, which contains no limitations period. We disagree.
Section 15-3-600 is a catch-all statute of limitations which provides, "An action for relief not provided for in this chapter must be commenced within ten years after the cause of action shall have accrued." S.C. Code Ann. § 15-3-600 (1976). Prior to the enactment of the UEFJA, this court held that, in an action on a foreign judgment, the statute of limitations to be applied is ordinarily the statute of the state where the action is brought and not that of the jurisdiction in which the judgment was obtained. Payne, at 386-387, 315 S.E.2d at 815. We found, although no statute expressly limits the time within which actions on foreign judgments must be brought, § 15-3-600 indirectly applies a
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 South Carolina Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|