Case Title: Mona v. Cranston (order)

Citation: 

Docket Number: 060205

State: virginia

Court: Virginia Supreme Court

Date: 2007-01-12T00:00:00Z

Document:
VIRGINIA: 
 
 
In the Supreme Court of Virginia held at the Supreme court 
Building in the City of Richmond, on Friday, the 12th day of 
January, 2007. 
 
Joseph Mona,  
 
 
 
 
Appellant, 
 
 
against  
Record No. 060205 
 
 
 
 
Circuit Court No. 2005-6034 
 
Michael L. Cranston, 
 
 
 
 
Appellee. 
 
 
 
Upon an appeal from a judgment rendered by the Circuit 
Court of Fairfax County. 
 
 
Upon consideration of the record, the briefs, and the argument 
of counsel, the Court is of the opinion that there is reversible 
error in the judgment of the circuit court. 
On July 28, 1986, a default judgment in the amount of $7,000 
was entered against Joseph Mona in favor of Michael L. Cranston in 
the Fairfax County General District Court.  On June 2, 1987, 
Cranston docketed the judgment in the Circuit Court of Fairfax 
County by filing an abstract of judgment.  The judgment remained 
unsatisfied, and on September 29, 2005, Cranston filed a motion in 
the circuit court to renew and extend the judgment.  The circuit 
court granted Cranston’s motion to extend the judgment.  Mona 
appeals from that judgment. 
The judgment against Mona was subject to the provisions of 
former Code § 16.1-69.55, which specifically addressed limitations 
on judgments rendered by general district courts.  Pursuant to that 
former statute, the judgment against Mona became unenforceable on 
July 29, 1996, because Cranston failed to file in the general 
 
2
district court a motion to extend the judgment within ten years of 
the date the judgment was rendered, as required by former Code 
§ 16.1-69.55.  See former Code § 16.1-69.55(B)(2) and (4) (1996).  
The fact that Cranston docketed the judgment in the circuit court 
was insufficient to render it a judgment of the circuit court 
because compliance with the statutory requirement of obtaining an 
extension of judgment, as specified in former Code § 16.1-
69.55(B)(4), was mandatory. 
The 2005 amendment of Code § 16.1-69.55(B)(4), which 
extinguished the requirement that a plaintiff file a separate 
motion to extend in general district court, has no bearing on this 
case because that amendment took place after the judgment against 
Mona expired.  See 2005 Acts ch. 135.  Therefore, the circuit court 
erred in granting Cranston’s motion to extend the judgment. 
Accordingly, the judgment appealed from is reversed and 
annulled, and final judgment is entered in favor of Joseph Mona. 
This order shall be published in the Virginia Reports and shall 
be certified to the said circuit court. 
A Copy, 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  Teste: 
Patricia L. Harrington, Clerk