2020 Georgia Code
Title 9 - Civil Practice
Chapter 12 - Verdict and Judgment
Article 6 - Enforcement of Foreign Judgments
§ 9-12-130. Short Title

This article may be cited as the "Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Law."

(Code 1981, §9-12-130, enacted by Ga. L. 1986, p. 380, § 1.)

- For annual survey of trial practice and procedure, see 38 Mercer L. Rev. 383 (1986). For annual survey on domestic relations, see 70 Mercer L. Rev. 81 (2018).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

Action barred.

- Because a judgment creditor sought to domesticate a foreign judgment but did not notify the trial court of the creditor's intent to rely on the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Law, O.C.G.A. § 9-12-130 et seq., it was an action to enforce a judgment which was barred because the action was filed more than five years after the judgment was entered. Williams v. American Credit Servs., Inc., 229 Ga. App. 801, 495 S.E.2d 121 (1998).

Trial court properly found that an action to enforce a Florida judgment entered against a judgment debtor was time-barred under Georgia law, granting the judgment debtor's motion to stay enforcement of that judgment, as the statute of limitations on enforcement of the Florida judgment had run under the law of Georgia, the receiving state, when viewed from the date of rendition of the judgment in the State of Florida, the state in which the judgment originated; moreover, to run the Georgia time limitation from the date of the filing of the judgment rather than from the date of rendition of the judgment would be contrary to the language of the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Law, O.C.G.A. § 9-12-130 et seq., and of Georgia's dormancy-of-judgment and judgment-renewal statutes, O.C.G.A. §§ 9-12-60 and9-12-61. Corzo Trucking Corp. v. West, 281 Ga. App. 361, 636 S.E.2d 39 (2006).

- Proper method for attacking a foreign judgment filed in Georgia under the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Law, O.C.G.A. § 9-12-130 et seq., is a motion to set aside under O.C.G.A. § 9-11-60(d), and the only appealable judgment in a case where a creditor sought to domesticate a New Jersey judgment in Georgia was the order denying the motion to set aside; because the corporation and the individual failed to appeal the denial of the motion to set aside by application, the order directing the corporation and the individual to pay in accordance with the New Jersey judgment was a nullity and provided no basis for review so the appellate court had no jurisdictional basis for the appeal and the appeal was dismissed. Arrowhead Alternator, Inc. v. CIT Communs. Fin. Corp., 268 Ga. App. 464, 602 S.E.2d 231 (2004).

- Procedures set forth in the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act, former O.C.G.A. § 9-11-40 et seq., and the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act, O.C.G.A. § 19-11-100 et seq., for registering and enforcing foreign support judgments are in addition to and not exclusive of the procedures in O.C.G.A. § 9-12-130 et seq. to file and domesticate judgments for enforcement; therefore, the trial court had jurisdiction to consider a mother's petition seeking interest due on child support owing on a Tennessee divorce decree. Dial v. Adkins, 265 Ga. App. 650, 595 S.E.2d 332 (2004).

When a judgment creditor registered a judgment the creditor obtained against judgment debtors in federal court in another state in the appropriate federal court in Georgia, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1963, that judgment was no longer a "foreign" judgment, under 28 U.S.C. § 1962, which required the creditor's compliance with the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Law, O.C.G.A. § 9-12-130 et seq., so the creditor could proceed to foreclose on the debtors' property without observing the procedures dictated in § 9-12-130 et seq., and the debtors were not entitled to injunctive relief against the creditor for failure to comply with that statutory scheme. Guin v. Alarm Detection Indus., 278 Ga. App. 114, 628 S.E.2d 376 (2006).

- Although the debtor did not receive notice of a creditor's motion for confirmation and entry of judgment in a Texas custody case, this did not render the Georgia trial court's order domesticating the judgment improper because the judgment was not entered in a new suit requiring service of process for legal action. Kahlig v. Martinez, 272 Ga. App. 491, 612 S.E.2d 833 (2005).

Debtor failed to demonstrate how entry of a confessed judgment constituted a transfer subject to avoidance as a preferential transfer because no evidence was provided that the creditor domesticated the confessed judgment as to the debtor pursuant to Georgia's Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Law, O.C.G.A. § 9-12-130 et seq., prior to the filing of the debtor's bankruptcy case. GMI Grp., Inc. v. Unique Funding Sols., LLC (In re GMI Grp., Inc.), 606 Bankr. 467 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 2019).

- It was error to domesticate an Ohio judgment under O.C.G.A. § 9-12-130. The judgment creditor had not offered admissible evidence to make a prima facie showing that the judgment debtor transacted business in the State of Ohio as contemplated by Ohio's long-arm statute or that the judgment debtor purposely established contacts with Ohio; thus, it had failed to negate the judgment debtor's defense of lack of personal jurisdiction. Std. Bldg. Co. v. Wallen Concept Glazing, Inc., 298 Ga. App. 443, 680 S.E.2d 527 (2009).

- In an action to enforce a foreign judgment from Arkansas, the trial court erred by setting aside the judgment against an individual defendant because that individual defendant appeared in the Arkansas court by filing in that court a motion to dismiss the action; thus, the individual defendant waived the defense of lack of personal jurisdiction by failing to raise the issue in the motion to dismiss in the Arkansas court. Carter v. Heritage Corner, Ltd., 320 Ga. App. 828, 741 S.E.2d 182 (2013).

- Inherent power of a Georgia court to set aside a judgment within the same term of court in which the judgment was entered does not extend to a foreign judgment domesticated under O.C.G.A. § 9-12-130 et seq. Lemcon USA Corp. v. Icon Tech. Consulting, Inc., 301 Ga. 888, 804 S.E.2d 347 (2017).

Cited in Eastlawn Corp. v. Bankers Equip. Leasing Co., 211 Ga. App. 551, 439 S.E.2d 753 (1993); Anderson Anesthesia, Inc. v. Anderson, 333 Ga. App. 437, 776 S.E.2d 647 (2015).