Title: Unifund CCR Partners, Assignee of Citibank (South Dakota) N.A. v. Abright
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: SC97321
State: Missouri
Issuer: Missouri Supreme Court
Date: February 13, 2019

SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI 
en banc
UNIFUND CCR PARTNERS 
) 
ASSIGNEE OF CITIBANK  
) 
(SOUTH DAKOTA) N.A., 
) 
) 
Appellant,  
) 
) 
v. 
) 
No. SC97321 
) 
WILLIAM O. ABRIGHT, 
) 
) 
     Respondent. 
) 
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF RALLS COUNTY 
The Honorable David C. Mobley, Judge 
Unifund CCR Partners, Assignee of Citibank (South Dakota) N.A., appeals a 
judgment overruling Unifund's motion for revival of a judgment on grounds it was filed 
out of time.1  Unifund timely filed its motion to revive the judgment within ten years of the 
last payment of the debtor's garnished wages into the circuit court's registry.  The judgment 
is reversed, and the case is remanded.2 
1 This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 10 of the Missouri Constitution. 
2 An order overruling a motion to revive a judgment is appealable as a "special order after final 
judgment in the cause" for purposes of the right to appeal pursuant to § 512.020 RSMo Supp. 2004.  
Abbott v. Abbott, 415 S.W.3d 770, 771 n.1 (Mo. App. 2013).
Opinion issued February 13, 2019
2 
 
Factual and Procedural Background 
On June 28, 2005, the circuit court entered a default judgment in favor of Unifund 
and against William Abright for $18,143.41 plus interest from the date of the judgment.  
Unifund served garnishments on Albright's employer, who paid the garnished funds into 
the circuit court registry.  The last payment into the circuit court's registry was made July 
26, 2007. 
On July 17, 2017, Unifund filed a Rule 74.09 motion for revival of the judgment 
against Abright.  The circuit court issued a show cause order to Abright, held a hearing, 
and overruled Unifund's motion as untimely.  The circuit court overruled Unifund's motion 
to set aside the order overruling the motion for revival of the judgment.  Unifund appeals.   
Standard of Review 
The only issue on appeal is whether the circuit court properly applied the law 
governing motions to revive judgments.  This purely legal issue is reviewed de novo.  
Crockett v. Polen, 225 S.W.3d 419, 420 (Mo. banc 2007).  
Unifund's motion to revive was timely 
 
Unifund's sole point on appeal asserts the circuit court erred by overruling the 
motion to revive the judgment as untimely.  Unifund argues its motion was filed timely 
within ten years of the date of the last payment duly entered on the trial court’s record as 
required by § 516.350.13 and Rule 74.09. 
                                                          
 
3 All statutory references are to RSMo Supp. 2014 unless otherwise noted. 
3 
 
Section 516.350.1 provides judgments are presumed paid and satisfied ten years 
after entry of the judgment unless revived by personal service on the defendant or, if a 
payment has been made, "ten years from the last payment so made."4  For purposes of 
§ 516.350.1, "judgments are conclusively presumed paid ten years after they were 
originally rendered unless a party has revived the judgment or entered a payment upon the 
record."  Pirtle v. Cook, 956 S.W.2d 235, 238 (Mo. banc 1997).  Garnished wages paid into 
the court's registry are a "payment" that "effectively revives the judgment" pursuant to 
§ 516.350 if entered on the record within ten years of the judgment.  Crockett, 225 S.W.3d 
at 420-21.  Therefore, the July 26, 2007 payment into the circuit court's registry resulting 
from the garnishment of Abright's wages effectively revived the June 25, 2005 judgment 
and commenced a new ten year period for purposes of § 516.350.1. 
                                                          
 
4 Section 516.350.1 provides:  
Every judgment, order or decree of any court or record…shall be presumed 
to be paid and satisfied after the expiration of ten years from the date of the 
original rendition thereof, or if the same has been revived upon personal 
service duly had upon the defendant or defendants therein, then after ten 
years from and after such revival, or in case a payment has been made on 
such judgment, order or decree, and duly entered upon the record thereof, 
after the expiration of ten years from the last payment so made, and after 
the expiration of ten years from the date of the original rendition or revival 
upon personal service, or from the date of the last payment, such judgment 
shall be conclusively presumed to be paid, and no execution, order or process 
shall issue thereon, nor shall any suit be brought, had or maintained thereon 
for any purpose whatever.  An action to emancipate a child, and any personal 
service or order rendered thereon, shall not act to revive the support order. 
 
(Emphasis added). 
4 
 
Rule 74.09 establishes the procedure for reviving a judgment.  Rule 74.09(a) 
provides: "A judgment may be revived by order of the court that entered it pursuant to a 
motion for revival filed by a judgment creditor within ten years after entry of the judgment 
or the last prior revival of the judgment."  (Emphasis added).  The "last prior revival of 
the judgment" was on July 26, 2007, when a payment was made and entered upon the 
record pursuant to the wage garnishment.  Consequently, Unifund's July 17, 2017 motion 
to revive the judgment was filed timely within ten years of the "last prior revival of the 
judgment" on July 26, 2007.  The circuit court erred by overruling the Unifund's motion to 
revive the judgment as untimely.   
Conclusion 
 
The judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded.  
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
___________________________  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Zel M. Fischer, Chief Justice 
 
 
All concur.