Opinion ID: 2586444
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Bearing of Baum v. Baum on the Present Dispute

Text: Petitioners argue that, under Baum v. Baum, 820 P.2d 1122, foreign judgments domesticated in Colorado are not judgments of Colorado courts within the meaning of section 13-52-102. Relying on Baum's holding, Petitioners argue that the filing of the foreign judgment in Colorado is simply recognition by Colorado courts of the foreign judgment. Therefore, Petitioners state that, under the Uniform Act, only one judgment existsthat is, the only judgment is the foreign judgment which has been recognized by the courts of this state. Consequently, Petitioners conclude that section 13-52-102's reference to the judgment is a reference to the underlying foreign judgment, not the domesticated Colorado court judgment. However, as discussed above, this assertion is belied by the plain language of the Uniform Act. Additionally, Petitioners misconstrue the import of Baum's statement that the six-year judgment lien period begins to run from the date of entry of the foreign judgment. The simple fact that the six-year judgment lien period runs from the date of entry of the foreign judgment does not mean that creditors are not required to revive the domesticated judgment in Colorado courts in order extend a judgment lien predicated upon the domesticated judgment. Instead, Baum's holding was a reflection of the policy concern that allowing foreign judgment holders' judgment liens to accrue from the date the judgment was domesticated in Colorado would allow such judgment creditors to create a longer judgment lien on a foreign judgment than on a judgment originally entered in Colorado. Id. Accordingly, the Baum court was concerned with ensuring that foreign judgment holders would not gain procedural advantages unavailable to domestic judgment holders. This concern underscores the purpose of the Uniform Act, which is to simplify and standardize the enforcement of foreign judgments domesticated in Colorado. Rather than standardizing judgment enforcement procedures in Colorado, Petitioners' reading of section 13-52-102(1) would result in different procedures being applied to revival of judgments and judgment liens depending upon whether the judgment originated from a Colorado court or was domesticated in Colorado courts pursuant to the Uniform Act. Consequently, under Petitioners' reading of section 13-52-102(1), the phrase revived as provided by law would have two different meanings. In the context of a creditor seeking to extend a lien predicated upon a judgment originating from a Colorado court, it would refer to C.R.C.P. 54(h). However, in the context of a creditor seeking to extend a lien predicated upon a foreign judgment domesticated in Colorado, it would refer to revival in the jurisdiction that originally issued the judgment. Such a result could not have been intended by the General Assembly when it stated that a judgment domesticated under the Uniform Act has the same effect and is subject to the same procedures, defenses, and proceedings for reopening, vacating, or staying as a judgment of a Colorado court. See § 13-53-103.