This complaint stems from a decade-old foreclosure case, and specifically involves the attempted collection of a 'dormant ' mortgage debt.     Ohio law is crystal clear that when a debt is not 'executed upon ' or 'renewed ' within a five-year period, the debt is considered dormant, and the lien is extinguished.     Ohio law further defines the 'execution ' of debt to as " a process of court, issued by its clerk, and directed to the sheriff of  the county.  '' ( R.C. 2327.01 ).     In my case, there was no 'execution ' as defined above, nor a 'certificate of judgment ' renewed during the period of time from  XX/XX/XXXX  through  XX/XX/XXXX .      As such, the Summary Judgment issues by the Court of Common Please  became dormant on  XX/XX/XXXX .     Nonetheless, on three occasions since that time - specifically  XXXX  XX/XX/XXXX ,  XX/XX/XXXX , and  XX/XX/XXXX  - the alleged Plaintiff in my case -  XXXX    XXXX   XXXX   - allegedly acting under direct orders from Select Portfolio Servicing, INC - filed a Praecipe Order of Sale with the Court in what amounts to an attempt to collect a debt that I currently do not owe as a result of the statutorily-imposed dormancy  .
In addition, SPS itself   has attempted more than 50 separate collection activities during the time since the judgment became dormant including sending letters to me, making phone calls, and even attaching a note to my door. Nearly all of these activities occurred after I properly disputed the debt, and the note on my door occured after I specifically requested that SPS 'cease and desist ' collection activities since the debt remains unvalidated to this day.     The specific statute is Ohio Revised Code  2329.07, which codifies when a Judgment may become dormant : ( A ) ( 1 ) If neither execution on a judgment rendered in a court of record or certified to the clerk of the court of common pleas in the county in which the judgment was rendered is issued, nor a certificate of judgment for obtaining a lien upon lands and tenements is issued and filed, as provided in sections 2329.02 and 2329.04 of the Revised Code, within five years from the date of the judgment or within five years from the date of the issuance of the last execution thereon or the issuance and filing of the last such certificate, whichever is later, then, unless the judgment is in favor of the state, the judgment shall be dormant and shall not operate as a lien upon the estate of the judgment debtor.      One bankruptcy judge has explained the operation of these statutes as follows from In re  XXXX ,  XXXX    XXXX    XXXX ,  XXXX  (  XXXX .   XXXX   Ohio  XXXX   ) : Ex ecution and dormancy statutes are to be strictly construed.  XXXX   v.   XXXX ,  XXXX  Ohio  XXXX   XXXX ,  XXXX ,  XXXX   XXXX   XXXX ,  XXXX  ( Ohio  XXXX  ) ;  XXXX    XXXX   .   XXXX   XXXX    XXXX   v.   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX ,  XXXX   XXXX   XXXX .  XXXX   XXXX ,  XXXX   XXXX   XXXX ,  XXXX   (   XXXX  ) ;  XXXX   XXXX .  XXXX ,  XXXX   XXXX   XXXX ,  XXXX   (  Okla.  XXXX  ).      Section 2329.07 sets forth the only means in Ohio for preventing a judgment from becoming dormant. The clear language of the statute requires the issuance of execution or a certificate of judgment before expiration of the original five-year period to prevent   dormancy.       Section 2329.07 provides that in order to extend the effectiveness of a judgment beyond the initial five year period there must be either execution or the issuance of a new certificate of judgment before expiration of the original execution or certificate of judgment.
As a result of the above, the law is clear that the judgment is dormant, and any action to collect on the debt is a violation of state and federal law.