KELLY JO FREEZE, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. ROBERT ARCHIE ELSBURY and DIANE KAY ELSBURY Defendants-Appellees.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 7-400 / 06-1037
Filed July 12, 2007
KELLY JO FREEZE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
vs.
ROBERT ARCHIE ELSBURY and
DIANE KAY ELSBURY
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Cerro Gordo County, Bryan H.
McKinley, Judge.
Kelly Jo Freeze appeals from a district court ruling denying her application
to extend a judgment. AFFIRMED.
Richard Tompkins, Mason City, for appellant.
J. Mathew Anderson, Mason City, for appellee.
Considered by Mahan, P.J., and Eisenhauer and Baker, JJ.
2
EISENHAUER, J.
Kelly Jo Freeze appeals from a district court ruling denying her application
to extend a judgment. We affirm.
Freeze obtained a judgment against Robert Elsbury from the bankruptcy
court on April 7, 1986. The judgment was then transcribed to Iowa District Court
of Cerro Gordo County on March 23, 1998. Diane Kay Elsbury (Diane) was
brought into the matter by her marriage to Robert. Nearly twenty years after the
judgment was entered, a significant amount was still owed on the debt. Freeze
filed an Application to Extend Judgment on April 5, 2006, requesting the
judgment be extended for at least ten years to allow her more time for collection.
The application was filed with the same case number and caption as the
transcript of judgment. The district court denied Freeze’s application for lack of
legal authority and failing to commence an action as required by Iowa Code
sections 614.1(6) and 614.3 (2006). Freeze appeals.
Our review is for correction of errors of law. We do not believe Freeze’s
judgment can be extended. In Whitters v. Neal, 603 N.W.2d 622, 634 (Iowa
1999), the Iowa Supreme Court held that without statutory authority, a judgment
lien could not be extended beyond the period of time fixed by statute.
The
principle applies here. One of the purposes of statutes of limitation is to protect a
defendant from further lawsuits after being subject to liability for a designated
period of time. Iowa Code section 614.1(6) provides a twenty-year limitation
during which an action founded on a judgment may be brought. We find no case
law or statutory authority and Freeze cites none permitting an extension beyond
that limitation.
3
Freeze could have obtained a new judgment for the balance due. See
Chader v. Wilkins, 284 N.W.183 (Iowa 1939) (holding that a new judgment may
be recovered upon a previous judgment, and in such an action, the previous
judgment is treated as an unperformed and unsatisfied contract obligation). In
order to do so, an independent action must be filed before the twenty-year
statute of limitation expires.
See Chader, 284 N.W. at 183.
Iowa Rule of
Criminal Procedure 1.301(1) provides that “a civil action is commenced by filing a
petition with the court.”
Rule 1.302 further states that an original notice
containing specific information must be filed and served after the petition is filed.
In the present case, Freeze did not comply with these requirements. Moreover,
she did not obtain a new case number or pay a filing fee.
Nothing in the
application indicates it was filed to start an independent and separate lawsuit.
Our law does not permit an extension of the judgment simply by filing an
application. We therefore affirm.
AFFIRMED.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
