Case Title: Hill v. Value Recovery Group, L.P.

Citation: 

Docket Number: 98-26

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 1998-09-16T00:00:00Z

Document:
Hill v. Value Recovery Group, L.P.1998 WY 115964 P.2d 1256Case Number: 98-26Decided: 09/16/1998Supreme Court of Wyoming
 
James C. HILL, Appellant (Defendant),

v.

VALUE RECOVERY GROUP, 
L.P., a Delaware Limited Partnership, Appellee 
(Plaintiff).

 

Appeal from the District 
Court, Carbon County, D. Terry Rogers, J.

 

C.M. Aron of 
Aron and Hennig, Laramie, for Appellant 
(Defendant).

Kermit C. Brown 
of Brown, Nagel & Waters, LLC, Laramie, for Appellee 
(Plaintiff).

Before 
LEHMAN, C.J., and THOMAS, MACY, GOLDEN and TAYLOR,* 
JJ.

* Chief Justice at time of 
conference.

MACY, 
Justice.

[¶1]      Appellant James 
Hill appeals from the denial of his motion to dismiss and set aside a foreign 
judgment.

[¶2]      We 
affirm.

ISSUES

[¶3]      Hill presents the 
following issues for our consideration on appeal:

Does the statute 
of limitations of W.S. § 1-3-105(a)(iii) apply to the filing of a foreign 
judgment under the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments 
Act?

Did the Uniform 
Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act repeal the statute of limitations on 
foreign judgments?

FACTS

[¶4]      On October 14, 
1987, the district court in Wichita County, Texas, entered a judgment against 
Hill and in favor of InterFirst Bank Wichita Falls, N.A. Appellee Value Recovery 
Group, L.P., acquired the judgment from the Federal Deposit Insurance 
Corporation, and it filed the Texas judgment in the Wyoming district court in 
Carbon County on February 4, 1997. Hill moved to dismiss and set aside the Texas 
judgment on the ground that the limitation delineated in Section 1-3-105(a)(iii) 
of the Wyoming statutes barred the filing of the foreign judgment. In the 
affidavit that he filed to support his motion, Hill stated that he had been a 
resident of Wyoming for more than five years and that the facts giving rise to 
"Plaintiff's cause of action and judgment, in the Texas civil proceeding[,] 
accrued on October 14, 1987."

[¶5]      The Wyoming 
district court held a hearing to consider Hill's motion. Finding that the 
statute of limitations does not apply to filing a foreign judgment, the district 
court denied Hill's motion. Hill appealed to this Court.

DISCUSSION

[¶6]      Hill maintains 
that the district court erred when it denied his motion to dismiss and set aside 
Value Recovery Group's foreign judgment. He argues that the district court was 
mistaken when it concluded that Section 1-3-105(a)(iii) did not apply in this 
case.

[¶7]      A judgment 
creditor has two legal avenues available to it to enforce a foreign judgment in 
Wyoming. It may proceed under the simplified procedures of the Uniform 
Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act, which is codified at Sections 1-17-701 
through 1-17-707 of the Wyoming statutes, or it may institute a separate lawsuit 
to enforce its judgment. WYO. STAT. §§ 1-17-701 to -707 (1997); Hull v. Buffalo 
Federal Savings & Loan Association, 661 P.2d 1049, 1051 n. 2 (Wyo. 1983). 
Value Recovery Group filed the Texas judgment in the Wyoming district court 
pursuant to the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act. Section 1-17-703 
describes the method and effect of filing a foreign judgment under the 
Act:

A copy of any 
foreign judgment authenticated in accordance with the [an] act of Congress or 
the statutes of this state may be filed in the office of the clerk of any 
district court of this state. The clerk shall treat the foreign judgment as a 
judgment of the district court of this state notwithstanding the amount of the 
judgment or that the action giving rise to the judgment, if initiated in this 
state, would be within the jurisdiction of a minor court. A judgment so filed 
has the same effect and is subject to the same procedures, defenses and 
proceedings for reopening, vacating or staying as a judgment of a district court 
of this state and may be so enforced or satisfied.

WYO. STAT. § 
1-17-703 (1997). See Haltom v. Haltom, 755 P.2d 876, 878 (Wyo. 1988); see also 
Salmeri v. Salmeri, 554 P.2d 1244, 1250 (Wyo. 1976) (stating that a foreign 
judgment filed in accordance with the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments 
Act has the same effect as a judgment entered by a Wyoming 
court).

[¶8]      Hill claims that 
the limitation period specified in Section § 1-3-105(a)(iii) applies to filing a 
foreign judgment under the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act. Section 
1-3-105(a)(iii) states:

(a) Civil 
actions other than for the recovery of real property can only be brought within 
the following periods after the cause of action accrues:

. . 
.

(iii) Within 
five (5) years after the debtor establishes residence in Wyoming, an action on a 
foreign claim, judgment or contract, express or implied, contracted or incurred 
and accrued before the debtor became a resident of 
Wyoming[.]

WYO. STAT. § 
1-3-105(a)(iii) (1997). See also Hollingshead v. Hollingshead, 942 P.2d 1104, 
1107 (Wyo. 1997) (acknowledging that Wyoming has a statute of limitations that 
applies to foreign judgments but does not have a statute of limitations that 
applies to domestic judgments). The question we must address in this case is 
whether or not filing a foreign judgment under the Uniform Enforcement of 
Foreign Judgments Act is a "civil action" that is governed by the limitation 
specified in Section 1-3-105(a)(iii).

[¶9]      In deciding this 
case, we must apply our well-established standard for construing statutes. We 
attempt to interpret statutes in accordance with the legislature's intent. State 
Department of Revenue and Taxation v. Pacificorp, 872 P.2d 1163, 1166 (Wyo. 
1994). We begin by making an " 'inquiry respecting the ordinary and obvious 
meaning of the words employed according to their arrangement and connection.' " 
Parker Land and Cattle Company v. Wyoming Game and Fish Commission, 845 P.2d 1040, 1042 (Wyo. 1993) (quoting Rasmussen v. Baker, 7 Wyo. 117, 133, 50 P. 819, 
823 (1897)). We construe statutes as a whole, giving effect to every word, 
clause, and sentence, and we construe together all parts of the statutes on the 
same subject. State ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Safety and Compensation Division v. 
Bruhn, 951 P.2d 373, 376 (Wyo. 1997). We give effect to the plain language of 
unambiguous statutes. Lyles v. State ex rel. Division of Workers' Compensation, 
957 P.2d 843, 846 (Wyo. 1998). We resort to extrinsic aids of statutory 
interpretation, such as legislative history or intent, only when statutes are 
ambiguous. Christensen v. Oedekoven, 888 P.2d 228, 230 (Wyo. 
1995).

[¶10]   In this case, we have guidance from 
a prior Wyoming Supreme Court case that defined the term "civil action" as it is 
used in Section 1-3-105. National Tailoring Co. v. Scott, 65 Wyo. 64, 196 P.2d 387, 392 (1948). " 'An "action" is a lawful demand of one's right in a court of 
justice. A "civil action" is a like demand by a person of a civil right.' " Id. 
(quoting 7 WORDS AND PHRASES 268 (perm. ed.)). This Court stated it was evident 
that Section 1-3-105's limitation periods were "operative merely upon the remedy 
by proceedings in court." Id.

[¶11]   Courts in states such as Colorado 
and Oklahoma have decided that filing a foreign judgment under the Uniform 
Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act does not amount to an "action" within the 
meaning of their statutes of limitations pertaining to foreign judgments 
actions. See, e.g., Hunter Technology, Inc. v. Scott, 701 P.2d 645 (Colo.Ct.App. 
1985); Producers Grain Corporation v. Carroll, 546 P.2d 285 (Okla. Ct. App. 
1976).

[T]he Uniform 
Act provides "a viable alternative to the traditional method of enforcing 
foreign judgments by a separate lawsuit. . . . The [Uniform] Act does not 
involve the institution of an action to enforce the judgment; it requires, to 
give the foreign judgment immediate legally enforceable consequences, only that 
it be filed in accordance with its provisions."

Hunter 
Technology, Inc., 701 P.2d  at 646 (quoting Producers Grain Corporation, 546 P.2d  
at 287 (citations omitted)). See also In re Marriage of Lyon, 764 P.2d 384, 385 
(Colo. Ct.App. 1988).

[¶12]   Some courts have taken a contrary 
view and have applied their statutes of limitations for enforcing foreign 
judgments to judgments filed under the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments 
Act. See, e.g., Eschenhagen v. Zika, 144 Ariz. 213, 696 P.2d 1362 (Ariz. Ct. 
App. 1985); Lawrence Systems, Inc., By and Through Douglas-Guardian Warehouse 
Corp. v. Superior Feeders, Inc., 880 S.W.2d 203 (Tex. Ct. App. 1994). These 
cases are materially different from the case at bar. Neither the Arizona statute 
of limitations nor the Texas statute of limitations employs the "civil action" 
terminology that is used in the Wyoming statute. Eschenhagen, 696 P.2d  at 1367; 
Lawrence Systems, Inc., By and Through Douglas-Guardian Warehouse Corp., 880 S.W.2d  at 207. Furthermore, those courts seem to confuse filing a judgment under 
the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act with commencing an action to 
enforce a foreign judgment. Eschenhagen, 696 P.2d at 1367-68; Lawrence Systems, 
Inc., By and Through Douglas-Guardian Warehouse Corp., 880 S.W.2d  at 
208.

[¶13]   We agree with the Colorado and 
Oklahoma courts. Filing a foreign judgment under the Uniform Enforcement of 
Foreign Judgments Act does not involve a court proceeding and, therefore, is not 
a civil action within the clear language of Section 1-3-105(a)(iii). Because 
Section 1-3-105 applies to only civil actions, Section 1-3-105(a)(iii) does not 
apply to filing a foreign judgment under the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign 
Judgments Act.

[¶14]   Hill maintains that, if we hold 
that Section 1-3-105(a)(iii) does not apply to filing a foreign judgment, we 
must necessarily hold that the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act 
effectively repealed Section 1-3-105(a)(iii). We disagree. Section 
1-3-105(a)(iii) is still applicable to the traditional lawsuits that are brought 
to enforce foreign judgments.

[¶15]   The district court correctly ruled 
that Section 1-3-105(a)(iii) does not apply to filing a foreign judgment under 
the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act because the filing does not 
constitute a civil action. The district court's denial of Hill's motion to 
dismiss and set aside Value Recovery Group's foreign judgment is, 
therefore,

[¶16]   Affirmed.