Court Opinion

ID: 9625413
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 07:40:20.883387+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:28:11.004712
License: Public Domain

HEARN, Judge:
Respectfully, I dissent. While I recognize the holding of Payne v. Claffy, 281 S.C. 385, 315 S.E.2d 814 (Ct.App.1984), that the general statute of limitations contained in S.C.Code section 15-3-600 indirectly applies to an action on a foreign judgment, I would hold it does not apply to a proceeding under the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act (UEFJA).
The UEFJA establishes a summary procedure for enrolling a foreign judgment in this state. The registration procedure under the Act is not an action like the common-law proceeding to enforce a foreign judgment in Payne.1 See Hunter Technology, Inc. v. Scott, 701 P.2d 645, 646 (Colo.Ct.App.1985) (“ ‘The [Uniform] Act does not involve the institution of an action to enforce the judgment; it requires, to give the foreign judgment immediate legally enforceable consequences, only that it be filed in accordance with its provisions.’ ” (quoting Producers Grain Corp. v. Carroll, 546 P.2d 285, 287 (Okla.Ct.App.1976))); Wright v. Trust Co. Bank, 219 Ga.App. 551, 466 S.E.2d 74, 75 (1995) (“The uniform law provides a summary procedure for endowing a filed foreign judgment with the same effect as a judgment of the court in which it is filed. It is not a new action....” (citation omitted)); Hill v. Value Recovery Group, L.P., 964 P.2d 1256, 1259 (Wyo.1998) (“Filing a foreign judgment under the [UEFJA] does not involve a court proceeding and, therefore, is not a civil action.... ”).
The majority relies on two recent opinions from other jurisdictions. Both Texas and Kentucky have applied their enforcement of foreign judgment statutes of limitations to registering foreign judgments in those states. In the Texas *488case, the language of the statute of limitations on which the Texas Court of Appeals relies is very different from that governing our decisions. Texas has had a statute for over seventy-five years that specifically limits actions on foreign judgments against domestic debtors to ten years. See Lawrence Sys., Inc. v. Superior Feeders, Inc., 880 S.W.2d 203, 206 (Tex.App.1994). This Texas statute applies to any “action.” Tex.Civ.Prac.Code Ann. § 16.066(b) (West 1986). The Texas court noted that the UEFJA required filing of the foreign judgment and giving notice to the debtor. Because filing and notice are essential elements in an “action” for enforcement, the court found its statute of limitations broad enough to apply to “actions” under the UEFJA. Lawrence Systems, 880 S.W.2d at 208.
By contrast, our statute of limitations at issue, Code section 15-3-600, applies only to a “cause of action.” In my view, this specifically limits its applicability to causes of action, a term that contemplates a proceeding between adverse parties, not a unilateral act such as registration under the UEFJA.
Admittedly, some jurisdictions have made facially appealing arguments to the effect that where the end result is the same, the means should be treated the same. See Fairbanks v. Large, 957 S.W.2d 307, 309 (Ky.Ct.App.1997) (“While the [UEFJA] procedure may be easier and less costly to pursue, it is nevertheless an enforcement procedure, the goal of which is identical to a suit to enforce a judgment.”). However, I do not find these rationales persuasive because the legal landscape of enforcing foreign judgments has changed with the passage of the UEFJA.
Under the protections of full faith and credit, foreign judgments that are valid, final, unsatisfied, and uncontested may be registered under our UEFJA. S.C.Code Ann. § 15-35-920(A) (Supp.1998). Once the judgment is registered properly, it must be docketed and indexed like a South Carolina judgment. S.C.Code Ann. § 15-35-920(B) (Supp.1998). After the foreign judgment has become a South Carolina judgment under the UEFJA, the judgment debtor may then challenge the now South Carolina judgment on “any ... ground for which relief from a judgment of this state is allowed.” S.C.Code Ann. § 15-35-940 (Supp.1998). Although at that *489point a statute limiting the enforcement period may be implicated, a general statute of limitations should not be applied.
However, those defenses affecting South Carolina’s ability to afford a foreign judgment full faith and credit through registration would still be allowed. For example, lack of personal jurisdiction to the original judgment is a defense to proper registration of a foreign judgment in South Carolina. See PYA/Monarch, Inc. v. Sowell’s Meats & Servs., Inc., 327 S.C. 469, 478, 486 S.E.2d 766, 771 (Ct.App.1997) (reversing the trial court’s accord of full faith and credit to a North Carolina judgment because the judgment debtor had insufficient minimum contacts with North Carolina to support the judgment; because the initial judgment was void, there was no judgment to register in South Carolina).
Moreover, a judgment registered under the UEFJA would also be subject to South Carolina Code section 15-39-30. See Commercial Credit Loans, Inc. v. Riddle, 334 S.C. 176, 512 S.E.2d 123 (1999). Riddle addressed the time for enforcement of a foreign judgment domesticated by a common-law action and held that Code section 15-39-30 does not begin to run until that foreign judgment is domesticated. See Id. at 182, 512 S.E.2d at 126 (“[T]he Illinois judgment was transmuted into a South Carolina judgment when it was domesticated.... [T]he ten year period for enforcement of the judgment, began on that date.”). Likewise, the ten year enforcement period would not start to run until a foreign judgment is properly registered under the UEFJA.
Similarly, the result in Commercial Credit harmonizes with the full faith and credit protections evoked by this case. South Carolina limitations periods should not apply to a foreign judgment until that foreign judgment becomes a valid South Carolina judgment. Therefore, if a foreign judgment is valid and enforceable in that foreign jurisdiction, South Carolina should give that judgment full faith and credit under the UEFJA, which was designed to facilitate such acceptance.
The majority invokes the principle that the General Assembly is presumed to enact legislation with reference to existing law and that, therefore, the enactment of the UEFJA did not abrogate the common-law rule in Payne. A more compelling rule of statutory construction in this instance is the principle *490that legislation enacted for a specific purpose like the UEFJA supplants the general law that previously applied in the area, particularly a general statute of limitations which was held to apply only “indirectly” to actions brought under prior law. See Witzig v. Witzig, 325 S.C. 363, 366, 479 S.E.2d 297, 299 (Ct.App.1996) (“It is a well settled principle of statutory construction that ‘specific laws prevail over general laws, and later legislation takes precedence over earlier legislation.’ ” (quoting Langley v. Pierce, 313 S.C. 401, 403, 438 S.E.2d 242, 243 (1993))); cf. Byrd v. Irmo High School, 321 S.C. 426, 435, 468 S.E.2d 861, 866 (1996) (“The enactment of later statutory provisions delineating a specific disciplinary process evinces an intent by the Legislature that students use such procedures and not the earlier-enacted, more general appeals procedure.”).
I recognize the majority’s concern that it seems anomalous for the legislature to endow foreign judgment creditors with a potentially greater period to enforce their judgments in South Carolina than that afforded domestic creditors. I would note, though, that the actual enforcement period would be the same once the foreign judgments were registered in this state. See S.C.Code Ann. § 15-39-30. The real distinction is the potentially greater period that foreign judgment creditors would have to register their judgments in South Carolina under the UEFJA rather than under the common-law procedure. In my view, our state’s law should keep pace with developing policy considerations such as those behind the UEFJA. As reflected in the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution, courts of one state must give such force and effect to a judgment of a sister state as that judgment would have in the sister state. See NationsBank of N.C. v. Parsons, 324 S.C. 506, 512, 477 S.E.2d 735, 738 (Ct.App.1996). The validity and effect of a foreign judgment must be determined by the laws of the state that rendered the judgment, not by the laws of this state. Id.; PYA/Monarch, Inc. v. Sowell’s Meats & Servs., Inc., 327 S.C. 469, 478, 486 S.E.2d 766, 771 (Ct.App.1997).
Accordingly, I would reverse.

. We use the term "registered” to denote those foreign judgments which are filed in accordance with the UEFJA. The term "domesticated” refers to the common-law procedure of bringing an action upon the foreign judgment.