National Enterprises, Inc. v. Chris Valsamakis
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2003-CA-01741-COA
NATIONAL ENTERPRISES, INC.
APPELLANT
v.
CHRIS VALSAMAKIS
DATE OF TRIAL COURT JUDGMENT:
TRIAL JUDGE:
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED:
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE:
NATURE OF THE CASE:
TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION:
DISPOSITION:
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:
CERTIORARI FILED:
MANDATE ISSUED:
APPELLEE
7/3/2003
HON. SHARION R. AYCOCK
MONROE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
W. DAVID DUNN
FRANK BRASWELL WEBB
CHRISTOPHER D. HEMPHILL
ROBERT DON. BAKER
CIVIL - OTHER
CIRCUIT COURT FOUND NATIONAL
ENTERPRISES, INC.'S JUDGMENT AGAINST
VALSAMAKIS HAD EXPIRED, THEREFORE
GARNISHMENT WAS VOID AND PROCEEDS
RECEIVED THEREFROM MUST BE RETURNED
TO VALSAMAKIS.
AFFIRMED: 07/27/2004
BEFORE KING, C.J., LEE AND GRIFFIS, JJ.
GRIFFIS, J., FOR THE COURT:
¶1.
On December 1, 1994, National Enterprises Inc., obtained a judgment against Chris Valsamakis
in Davidson County, Tennessee. At the time, Valsamakis was a resident of Monroe County, Mississippi.
National enrolled its judgment in the Monroe County Circuit Clerk's office on September 15, 1995.
¶2.
National issued a writ of garnishment on Valsamakis' employer on June 3, 1999. Pursuant to the
writ, Valsamakis' employer withheld $14,927 and tendered the funds to National.
¶3.
On February 20, 2003, Valsamakis filed a motion to vacate the garnishment. On May 9, 2003,
the Monroe County Circuit Court found that Valsamakis was a resident of Mississippi when the Tennessee
action was commenced, that National had requested a writ of garnishment more than three years after its
judgment was rendered, the writ of garnishment was void ab initio, and all withheld funds should be
returned to Valsamakis. From this order, National appeals.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
¶4.
The Mississippi Supreme Court articulated the standard of review for considering a ruling regarding
the application of law to a set of undisputed facts in ABC Mfr. Corp. v. Doyle, 749 So.2d 43, 45 (Miss.
1999). "This court uses a de novo standard of review when passing upon questions of law. . . ." Id.
ANALYSIS
¶5.
The enrollment and enforcement of foreign judgments in Mississippi is governed by statute.
Mississippi Code Annotated §§ 11-7-301 through 11-7-309 (Supp. 2003) establish the proper procedure
for enrollment and enforcement of foreign judgments, as well as for any attack on the enrollment of foreign
judgments. Mississippi Code Annotated § 15-1-45 (Rev. 2003) states the applicable statute of limitations
for filing a foreign judgment:
All actions founded on any judgment or decree rendered by any court of record without
this state shall be brought within seven years after the rendition of such judgment or decree,
and not after. However, if the person against whom such judgment or decree was or shall
be rendered, was, or shall be at the time of the institution of the action, a resident of this
state, such action, founded on such judgment or decree, shall be commenced within three
years next after the rendition thereof, and not after.
2
¶6.
Valsamakis was a Mississippi resident at the time the Tennessee action was commenced and the
judgment entered. National obtained the Tennessee judgment on December 1, 1994, and did not issue the
writ of garnishment until June 3, 1999. Because more than three years passed, the statute of limitations
found in Mississippi Code Annotated § 15-1-45 expired before National received its writ of garnishment.
¶7.
A garnishment proceeding is no longer valid after the lapse of the judgment upon which the
garnishment is issued. Anderson-Tully Co. v. Brown, 383 So.2d 1389, 1390 (Miss. 1980). Once
National's judgment against Valsamakis was extinguished by the expiration of the limitations statute,
judgment creditor National had no "valid claim to the funds in controversy." Grace v. Pierce, 127 Miss.
831, 838, 90 So. 590, 592 (1922). Therefore, the garnishment was void ab initio.
¶8.
National argues that even if its writ of garnishment was void, Valsamakis waived his right to attack
its validity because Valsamakis did not file his motion to vacate the writ of garnishment for four years from
the time it was entered. However, National's argument is misplaced. While a defense based on statute of
limitations is an affirmative defense that must be timely asserted, Valsamakis is not asserting that defense.
Valsamakis is asserting that the judgment was void ab initio because the statute of limitations had run prior
to National's writ of garnishment being issued. With that assertion, he is correct. The judgment is
unenforceable because it was not timely filed pursuant to § 15-1-45. Magallanes v. Magallanes, 802
So.2d 174, 177 (¶ 11) (Miss. Ct. App. 2001).
¶9.
THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF MONROE COUNTY IS
AFFIRMED. ALL COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO THE APPELLANT.
KING, C.J., BRIDGES AND SOUTHWICK, P.JJ., LEE, IRVING, MYERS AND
CHANDLER, JJ., CONCUR.
3
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.
