Court Opinion

ID: 9561872
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 18:17:52.162089+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:13:08.429677
License: Public Domain

Andersen, J.
(concurring in the result)—I concur but do so on the basis of the language of the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act, RCW 6.36, as that act was worded when this case was tried.
The opinion suggests that under the common law of this state, the period of one statute of limitations (ours) can be stacked on top of another (California's). I disagree. I do not believe that the public policy behind statutes of limitation comport with that concept, or that a foreign judgment should be given a higher position than a judgment of this state, absent specific statutory authority in this state which requires such a result.
The trial court did not enter judgment against the judgment debtor for any of the unpaid support obligations which accrued over 6 years prior to the date on which the judgment creditor filed her action in this state seeking to enforce the California judgment. This action was thus commenced within the period of the statute of limitations of both the state rendering the judgment and of this state, so no conflict of laws problem as to time limitations governing *332actions on foreign judgments arises. See 36 A.L.R.2d 567 (1954).
The method of enforcement of foreign judgments is governed by the law of the forum and the enforcement procedures of each state are peculiar to it. 46 Am. Jur. 2d Judgments § 905 (1969); Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 130 (1971). Washington is the forum state.
Foreign judgments may be enforced in this state in either of two ways, by a direct action upon the foreign judgment or by an action under the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act, RCW 6.36. 46 Am. Jur. 2d Judgments § 906 (1969); RCW 6.36.160.
Although the record before us is not entirely clear, it appears that the judgment creditor in this case was proceeding under the uniform act, although she did not specifically plead it as such nor did she precisely follow the registration procedures of the act. See RCW 6.36.030. The judgment creditor did, however: plead the California judgment verbatim in her complaint and ask for a judgment in this state based thereon; serve process on the judgment debtor and give him the opportunity to appear and defend, which he did, and to raise the statute of limitations as an affirmative defense, which he also did; and refer to "regis: tering" the California judgment in her pleadings, as did the judgment debtor in his. Based on this, I would hold that the judgment creditor substantially complied with the uniform act and should be considered as having proceeded thereunder.
Here the judgment creditor complied with the provision of the uniform act requiring that she sue "within the time allowed for bringing an action on a foreign judgment in this state, ..." RCW 6.36.020.
Then when the judgment creditor got her judgment, the act provides that "the registered judgment shall become a final personal judgment of the court in which it is registered." (Italics mine.) RCW 6.36.070. Thus, the amount of the obligation owing on the California judgment on the date that the suit was commenced thereon in this state *333became a new judgment in this state as of the date of the Washington judgment.
As a new Washington judgment, it then became enforceable for a period of 6 years from the date of the new judgment by virtue of other statutes, RCW 4.56.210 and RCW 6.04.010, as pointed out in the majority opinion.
Here the trial court concluded:
The judgment entered herein is deemed to be, shall be and is a domestic judgment of the State of Washington, adopting and based upon a judgment of the sister State of California. It is entitled to the effect of any domestic judgment on its date of entry as to enforcement in that it shall constitute a judgment lien and the non-exempt property of the judgment debtor shall be subject to execution and other enforcement under the laws of the State of Washington for a period of six (6) years from the date of entry.
Conclusion of law No. 8. For the reasons heretofore stated, the trial court's conclusion was in my opinion correct and I therefore concur with the majority's affirmance of the judgment.
In order that this case be kept in perspective, however, one further observation is required and that is that under the view of the law as I have expressed it, this same result will not necessarily occur in cases arising after September 21, 1977. The reason is this. The original Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act, as adopted in this state in 1953, Laws of 1953, ch. 191., p. 409, was patterned after the 1948 act adopted by the uniform law commissioners. See 13 U.L.A. 181 et seq. (Master ed. 1975). That is the act under which this case was tried and decided. However, substantial changes were subsequently made in this act by the State of Washington Legislature. Those changes became effective September 21, 1977, Laws of 1977, 1st Ex. Sess., ch. 45, p. 259, and were patterned after the 1964 revised act adopted by the uniform law commissioners. See 13 U.L.A. 171 et seq. (Master ed. 1975). Since the subsequent changes in the *334uniform act are not an issue in the present case, no comment as to-their effect would here be appropriate.1
Petition for rehearing denied May 11, 1978.
Review denied by Supreme Court October 10, 1978.

RCW 6.36.070 quoted above, and which provided that "the registered judgment shall become a final personal judgment of the court in which it is registered" was repealed effective September 21, 1977, as noted and the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act of this state now reads in pertinent part:
Filing of foreign judgment—Authorized—Effect. A copy of any foreign judgment authenticated in accordance with the act of congress or the statutes of this state may be filed in the office of the clerk of any superior court of any county of this state. The clerk shall treat the foreign judgment in the same manner as a judgment of the superior court of this state. A judgment so filed has the same effect and is subject to the same procedures, defenses, set-offs, counterclaims, cross-complaints, and proceedings for reopening, vacating, or staying as a judgment of a superior court of this state and may be enforced or satisfied in like manner.
RCW 6.36.025.