2021 Georgia Code
Title 9 - Civil Practice
Chapter 12 - Verdict and Judgment
Article 6 - Enforcement of Foreign Judgments
§ 9-12-134. Appeal or Stay of Foreign Judgment; Security for Satisfaction

1. If the judgment debtor shows the court that an appeal from the foreign judgment is pending or will be taken or that a stay of execution has been granted and proves that the judgment debtor has furnished the security for the satisfaction of the judgment required by the state in which it was rendered, the court shall stay enforcement of the foreign judgment until the appeal is concluded, the time for appeal expires, or the stay of execution expires or is vacated.
2. If the judgment debtor shows the court any ground on which enforcement of a judgment of the court of this state would be stayed, including the ground that an appeal from the foreign judgment is pending or will be taken or that the time for taking such an appeal has not yet expired, the court shall stay enforcement of the foreign judgment for an appropriate period until all available appeals are concluded or the time for taking all appeals has expired and require the same security for satisfaction of the judgment that is required in this state, subject to the provisions of subsections (b) and (f) of Code Section 5-6-46.
3. With respect to a guardianship order or conservatorship order from another state registered and recorded under Article 4 of Chapter 11 of Title 29, nothing in subsection (a) or (b) of this Code section shall prevent an appropriate court from taking any action permitted by subsection (d) of Code Section 29-4-70, subsection (d) of Code Section 29-5-110, or Articles 1 and 2 of Chapter 11 of Title 29.

(Code 1981, §9-12-134, enacted by Ga. L. 1986, p. 380, § 1; Ga. L. 2000, p. 228, § 3; Ga. L. 2004, p. 980, § 2; Ga. L. 2019, p. 693, § 36/HB 70.)

The 2019 amendment, effective January 1, 2020, added subsection (c).

- Ga. L. 2000, p. 228, § 1, not codified by the General Assembly, provides: "The Act shall be known and may be cited as the 'Civil Litigation Improvement Act of 2000.'"

Ga. L. 2004, p. 980, § 4, not codified by the General Assembly, provides that the amendment by that Act shall apply to cases pending on or filed on or after May 17, 2004.

- For note on 2000 amendment of this Code section, see 17 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 37 (2000).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

Enforcement of support order.

- After the defendant failed to investigate paternity despite his suspicion that he was not the father of all his wife's children, and since his failure to investigate was not caused by any alleged misrepresentation by his former spouse, he failed to show either actionable fraud or that his lack of investigation was unmixed with his own "negligence or fault," and the trial court erred in staying enforcement of an out-of-state support order. Department of Human Resources v. Fenner, 235 Ga. App. 233, 510 S.E.2d 534 (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).

- Grant of a stay of a filed foreign judgment was erroneous because, under subsection (b) of O.C.G.A. § 9-12-134, a judgment rendered by a court in Georgia is not subject to the limitation period imposed on foreign judgments by O.C.G.A. § 9-3-20; rather, judgments filed under the Uniform Law are subject to a stay of execution if the judgments are dormant under O.C.G.A. § 9-12-60(a). Aetna Ins. Co. v. Williams, 237 Ga. App. 881, 517 S.E.2d 109 (1999).

- Trial court properly stayed enforcement of an original South Carolina judgment under O.C.G.A. § 9-12-134 because an appeal was pending, and once the South Carolina appellate court issued a remittitur and the lower court entered a revised judgment, the appellee properly filed the revised South Carolina judgment and moved to lift the stay, and once the revised South Carolina judgment was filed, the judgment, like the original, had the same effect as a Georgia judgment under O.C.G.A. § 9-12-132. The revised judgment had the same effect a Georgia judgment would have if the judgment had been revised in accordance with a remittitur received from a Georgia appellate court, and the stay was, therefore, properly lifted to allow enforcement of that revised judgment. Noaha, LLC v. Vista Antiques & Persian Rugs, Inc., 306 Ga. App. 323, 702 S.E.2d 660 (2010).