Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_02-mc-03127/USCOURTS-almd-2_02-mc-03127-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: Registration of Foreign Judgment

---

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

RONALD CUNNINGHAM, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2:02-MC-03127-ID

) (WO)

REX GLENN, et al. )

)

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

This cause is currently before the Court on the Plaintiff’s Motion to Renew Judgment.

(Doc. #22). After reviewing the Plaintiff’s motion, and for the reasons set forth in this order,

the Plaintiff’s motion is due to be DENIED.

I. Background

A judgment was initially entered in favor of Plaintiff Ronald Cunningham and against

Defendants Donald J. Williams, Clarence W. Hellums, and Rex Glenn on or about July 17,

2000 in the amount of $43,212.08. On September 5, 2002, the Plaintiff attempted to satisfy

the judgment against Donald J. Williams by applying to the Court for a writ of garnishment

against DJW, Inc., an entity that the Plaintiff believed owed or would owe money to Donald

J. Williams. (Doc. #2). The Court issued a writ of garnishment, (Doc. #3), and DJW, Inc.

failed to file an answer to the writ. (Doc. #6). The Court then entered a judgment against

garnishee DJW, Inc. (Doc. #9).

Case 2:02-mc-03127-ID Document 24 Filed 02/24/11 Page 1 of 6
The Plaintiff then attempted to satisfy the judgment against Rex Glenn on August 24,

2009, by applying to the Court for a writ of garnishment against First Community Bank of

Central Alabama, an entity that the Plaintiff believed owed or would owe money to Rex

Glenn. (Doc. #11). The Court issued the requested writ of garnishment. (Doc. #12). In its

answer to the writ of garnishment, First Community Bank of Central Alabama stated that it

maintained a checking account for Rex Glenn and that the balance of the account was

$53.82. (Doc. #14). The Court ordered that all funds owned by Rex Glenn and held by, or

later delivered to, garnishee First Community Bank of Central Alabama be paid over to the

attorneys for the Plaintiff. (Doc. #19).

The judgment against Clarence W. Hellums has been fully satisfied. (Doc. #21).

The Plaintiff filed his motion to renew the judgment against Donald J. Williams and

Rex Glenn on September 7, 2010. Out of an abundance of caution, after reviewing the

Plaintiff’s Motion to Renew the Judgment and the accompanying affidavit, the Court ordered

the Defendants to show cause why the Plaintiff’s motion to renew the judgment should not

be granted. (Doc. #23). The Defendants have not responded to that order.

II. Discussion

A. The Presumption of Satisfaction

The first issue the Court must address is whether the judgment at issue in this case is

presumed to be satisfied. Under Alabama law, “if 10 years have elapsed from the entry of the

judgment without issue of execution or if 10 years have elapsed since the date of the last

2

Case 2:02-mc-03127-ID Document 24 Filed 02/24/11 Page 2 of 6
execution issued, the judgment must be presumed satisfied, and the burden of proving it not

satisfied is upon the plaintiff.” Ala. Code § 6-9-191 (1975); see Davis Int’l., Inc. ex rel.

Patel v. Berryman, 730 So. 2d 242, 245 (Ala. Civ. App. 1999). The presumption of

satisfaction will apply after 10 years from entry of the judgment even if the judgment creditor

obtained a writ of garnishment during the first 10 years of the life of the judgment. See

AmSouth Bank, N.A. v. Bischoff, 678 So. 2d 1102, 1102-03 (Ala. Civ. App. 1995) (holding

that Bischoff’s garnishment proceedings within the first 10 years did not revive a judgment

but that AmSouth’s motion to renew the judgment within the first 10 years did revive the

judgment).

In this case, the Plaintiff obtained a judgment against the Defendants on July 17, 2000.

According to the record, the Plaintiff has made no attempt to execute the judgment from the

time it was entered. Instead, the Plaintiff attempted to satisfy the judgment through

garnishment proceedings. The Plaintiff obtained writs of garnishment on September 9, 2002

and September 1, 2009. The Plaintiff then filed this motion to renew judgment on September

7, 2010. But, just as Bischoff’s garnishment proceedings in AmSouth were insufficient to

revive his judgment, the Plaintiff’s efforts to collect on the judgment through garnishment

do not qualify as an execution on the judgment and are insufficient to prevent the

presumption of satisfaction from attaching. Because the Plaintiff waited more than 10 years

from the date the judgment was entered to file the motion to renew, and because the writs of

garnishment alone are insufficient to revive a judgment, the Court must presume that the

3

Case 2:02-mc-03127-ID Document 24 Filed 02/24/11 Page 3 of 6
judgment has been satisfied.

B. Has the Plaintiff Overcome the Presumption of Satisfaction?

The Court must now decide whether the Plaintiff has overcome the presumption of

satisfaction. The Alabama Supreme Court has stated:

It is said that so strong is this presumption of satisfaction which the law raises

by lapse of time . . . , it will prevail until overcome by clear and decisive proof

to the contrary or by the establishment of facts and circumstances from which

nonpayment may be clearly inferred . . . . The evidence to rebut must be strong

and convincing to the effect of producing a reasonable conviction that the

judgment had not been paid or satisfied.

Gambill v. Cassimus, 22 So.2d 909, 910 (Ala. 1945) (citations omitted). Thus, in order for

the Court to renew a judgment more than 10 years after it has been entered, the Court must

find strong and convincing evidence that the judgment has not been satisfied. See id. The

Alabama Court of Civil Appeals has held that the testimony of individuals—including

attorneys—who are familiar with the books and records of the creditor but whose testimony

rests on hearsay and does not account for the many ways in which a judgment may be

satisfied, is not sufficient to overcome the presumption of satisfaction. See Gambill, 22 So.

2d at 910; see also In re Lefever’s Estate, 278 Pa. 196 (Pa. 1923) (cited with approval in

Gambill, and holding that the testimony of a cashier who was familiar with the creditor’s

books and records that the judgment had not been paid was insufficient to overcome the

presumption of payment). In contrast, the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals has held that

testimony of a corporate officer who had been an officer since incorporation and who

actually kept and maintained the books and records was sufficient to rebut the presumption

4

Case 2:02-mc-03127-ID Document 24 Filed 02/24/11 Page 4 of 6
of satisfaction. See Slay v. McKean Paint and Hardware Store, Inc., 317 So. 2d 326 (Ala.

Civ. App. 1975) (finding sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption where the president

of the corporation testified that (1) he had been an officer of the corporation since

incorporation; (2) he had been president for the previous ten years; (3) he was familiar with

the books and records of the corporation (in fact, he kept the books); and (4) that the

judgment had not been paid in full).

The only evidence of satisfaction in this case is an affidavit filed by the Plaintiff’s

attorney. The attorney’s affidavit states (1) that he is the attorney in fact for Plaintiff Ronald

Cunningham; (2) that he is affiliated with the Plaintiff; (3) that he is familiar with the books

and records of the Plaintiff; (4) that he has actual and personal knowledge of the correctness

of the Plaintiff’s account; (5) that he supervises the keeping and maintenance of the

Plaintiff’s books and records; and (6) that the “judgment remains unpaid and unsatisfied.”

(Doc. #22-1).

The position of the Plaintiff’s attorney is similar to the attorney in Gambill and the

cashier in Lefever who, although familiar with the creditor’s books and records, did not

actually keep the books and, according to the reviewing courts, had based their testimonies

on hearsay. Additionally, unlike the evidence in Slay, nothing in the affidavit of the

Plaintiff’s attorney indicates how long the attorney has been acquainted with the Plaintiff’s

books and records. Moreover, instead of being the corporate officer who actually kept the

books and records as in Slay, the Plaintiff’s attorney claims to have only supervised their

5

Case 2:02-mc-03127-ID Document 24 Filed 02/24/11 Page 5 of 6
keeping and maintenance. The Court concludes that the information in the affidavit of the

Plaintiff’s attorney is not enough to overcome the presumption of satisfaction. Nevertheless,

if the Plaintiff can produce additional evidence that more convincingly rebuts the

presumption of satisfaction, then the Court may entertain an additional motion to renew the

judgment.

III. Conclusion

For the reasons stated, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Renew Judgment

(Doc. #22) be and the same is hereby DENIED.

Done this the 24th day of February, 2011.

/s/ Ira DeMent

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

6

Case 2:02-mc-03127-ID Document 24 Filed 02/24/11 Page 6 of 6