Opinion ID: 3166758
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Execution of the Judgment

Text: [¶17] DiPietro contends that, even if Faith Temple’s complaint is premised on a recognized cause of action, the court erred in directing that an execution issue on the bankruptcy judgment. We agree. [¶18] Pursuant to 14 M.R.S. § 4651 (2015), executions may issue “on a judgment of the Superior Court or the District Court.” Faith Temple chose not to invoke the streamlined procedure established in the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act, which, if successful, would have transformed the bankruptcy judgment into a state court judgment that was enforceable through a writ of execution. Instead, Faith Temple commenced a separate action. Because that separate action had not yet resulted in a favorable state court judgment, Faith Temple did not have a state court judgment upon which it was entitled to obtain a writ of execution. Thus, the court erred in ordering that an execution issue.5 [¶19] DiPietro raises several other challenges to the court’s order directing issuance of a writ of execution, including whether the court followed the procedural requirements of 14 M.R.S. § 4654 and whether the court properly applied 14 M.R.S. § 864 (2015), which provides that a judgment is presumed paid after twenty years from its issuance. Because we hold that the execution should 5 It does not appear from the record that a writ of execution was ever issued. If execution was issued, it is void. 12 not have issued in the first place, we do not reach these other challenges to the issuance of an execution.