Case Name: Dana R. Wellington, Respondent, v. Edwin R. Wellington, Appellant
Court: Washington Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Washington
Decision Date: 1978-02-27
Citations: 19 Wash. App. 328
Docket Number: No. 4475-1
Parties: Dana R. Wellington, Respondent, v. Edwin R. Wellington, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Washington Appellate Reports
Volume: 19
Pages: 328–334

Head Matter:
[No. 4475-1.
Division One.
February 27, 1978.]
Dana R. Wellington, Respondent, v. Edwin R. Wellington, Appellant.
Jerome R. Cronk, for appellant.
Robert C. Alexander, for respondent.

Opinion:
Williams, J.
This action is based upon a foreign judgment. The cause was tried in the Snohomish County Superior Court and resulted in a judgment for unpaid child support.
The facts are that Dana and Edwin Wellington were divorced in California on September 20, 1968. The decree ordered Edwin to pay $100 per month for each of the three minor children. In January 1969, Edwin moved to Washington, and in February 1974, Dana brought this action. On January 7, 1976, the court recognized the California judgment and ordered Edwin to pay $8,455 in back child support.
The Snohomish County action was commenced within the period of the 6-year statute of limitations. RCW 4.16-.040. The only question presented is whether support payments which accrued more than 6 years before adoption of the judgment in Washington are legally collectible. Edwin argues that they are not collectible because of the following statutes:
The party in whose favor a judgment of a court of record of this state has been, or may hereafter be, rendered, or his assignee, may have an execution issued for the collection or enforcement of the same, at any time within six years from the rendition thereof; . . .
(Italics ours.) RCW 6.04.010 in part; and
After the expiration of six years from the date of the entry of any judgment heretofore or hereafter rendered in this state, it shall cease to be a lien or charge against the estate or person of the judgment debtor, and no suit, action or other proceeding shall ever be had on any judgment rendered in this state by which the lien or duration of such judgment, claim or demand, shall be extended or continued in force for any greater or longer period than six years from the date of the entry of the original judgment, except as in RCW 4.56.225 provided.
(Italics ours.) RCW 4.56.210.
Edwin claims that despite the language of these statutes limiting them to judgments of "this state," they must operate to restrict the time within which the California judgment may be enforced in that state or in any other state. We disagree. The rule in this state is that if a judgment creditor, in good faith, timely commences an action upon a judgment of a sister state, he can, in effect, extend the duration of that judgment beyond the period of 6 years following its rendition. Roche v. McDonald, 158 Wash. 446, 291 P. 476 (1930).
The Washington judgment is a new judgment, standing on its own, and the time period for executing upon it commenced to run from the date of its entry. RCW 6.04.010.
Judgment affirmed.