Printable Format60-2404. Revivor of dormant judgment. A dormant judgment may be revived and have the same force and effect as if it had not become dormant if the holder thereof files a motion for revivor and files a request for the immediate issuance of an execution thereon if such motion is granted. Notice of the filing of the motion shall be given as for a summons under article 3 of this chapter. If the motion for revivor was filed within two years after the date on which the judgment became dormant or, in the case of a child support judgment, was filed during the period prior to the child's emancipation, within two years after the child's emancipation or within two years after the judgment became dormant, whichever is later, on the hearing thereof the court shall enter an order of revivor unless good cause to the contrary be shown, and thereupon the execution shall issue forthwith. On the hearing of a motion to revive a child support judgment, the court may enter an order to prevent the unjust enrichment of any party or to ensure that payments will be disbursed to the real party in interest. A judgment may also be revived by the filing of a written stipulation of revivor signed by all of the parties affected thereby. For the purpose of this section, a support enforcement proceeding, as defined by K.S.A. 60-2403 and amendments thereto, or any attachment or garnishment process shall have the same effect as the issuance of an execution.
History: L. 1963, ch. 303, 60-2404; L. 1988, ch. 218, § 3; L. 1990, ch. 208, § 1; L. 1992, ch. 103, § 2; July 1.
Source or prior law:
G.S. 1868, ch. 80, § 440; L. 1909, ch. 182, § 437; R.S. 1923, 60-3221.
Cross References to Related Sections:
International reciprocity, 23-3601.
Law Review and Bar Journal References:
G.S. 1949, 60-3221 discussed in survey of family law, John Brand, Jr., Dan Hopson, Jr., 12 K.L.R. 257, 274 (1963).
"Attachment and Garnishment Under the New Code," Wilbur D. Geeding, 33 J.B.A.K. 177, 179 (1964).
Compared in family law survey with continuing execution under divorce decrees, Harvey S. Berenson, 17 K.L.R. 349, 381 (1969).
"Is Kansas Probate Non Claim Statute Unconstitutional?" John F. Kuether, 54 J.K.B.A. 115, 129 (1985).
"Survey of Kansas Law: Family Law," Nancy G. Maxwell, 37 K.L.R. 801, 811 (1989).
"Child Support Judgments in Domestic Matters: Modification of Judgments and Calculation of Arrearage," Dennis Molamphy, XIV J.K.T.L.A. No. 2, 9 (1990).
CASE ANNOTATIONS
Prior law cases, see G.S. 1949, 60-3221 and the 1961 Supp. thereto.
1. Revivor of dormant judgment matter of right. First Federal Savings & Loan Assn. v. Liebert, 195 Kan. 100, 101, 102, 403 P.2d 183.
2. Judgment revived after dormancy does not retain priority over encumbrances created prior to revivor. Brieger v. Brieger, 197 Kan. 756, 757, 761, 421 P.2d 1.
3. Noncompliance cited; dormant judgment section inapplicable to action to enjoin collection of unpaid sales tax. Riggan v. Director of Revenue, 203 Kan. 129, 130, 453 P.2d 452.
4. Holder of dormant judgment must file motion for revivor and request issuance of an execution thereon if such motion is granted within two years. Riney v. Riney, 205 Kan. 671, 672, 673, 679, 680, 473 P.2d 77.
5. If dormant judgment not revived it is extinguished; equitable estoppel will not prevent dormancy. Clark v. Glazer, 4 Kan. App. 2d 658, 659, 609 P.2d 1177.
6. Nothing other than revivor can revitalize dormant judgment. Long v. Brooks, 6 Kan. App. 2d 963, 966, 636 P.2d 242 (1981).
7. Statute not applicable when judgment in another state constitutes new judgment and not revival of former judgment; full faith and credit given to such judgment. Johnson Brothers Wholesale Liquor Co. v. Clemmons, 233 Kan. 405, 406, 407, 661 P.2d 1242 (1983).
8. Time within which judgment must be enforced to prevent dormancy as not running during time it is enforceable by legal process examined. Wichita Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. North Rock Rd. Ltd. Partnership, 13 Kan. App. 2d 678, 683, 779 P.2d 442 (1989).
9. Legislative intent in computing time when a judgment becomes dormant determined. DeKalb Swine Breeders, Inc. v. Woolwine Supply Co., 248 Kan. 673, 676, 809 P.2d 1223 (1991).
10. A dormant judgment not revived pursuant hereto becomes absolutely extinguished and unenforceable. Cyr v. Cyr, 249 Kan. 94, 97, 815 P.2d 97 (1991).
11. Dormancy and revivor statutes are procedural and may be applied retroactively. Gardner v. Gardner, 22 Kan. App. 2d 314, 315, 916 P.2d 43 (1996).
12. Laches and other equitable remedies not abrogated in enacting dormancy and revivor statutes. In re Marriage of Jones, 22 Kan. App. 2d 753, 921 P.2d 839 (1996).
13. Child support obligor was collaterally estopped from relitigating state court garnishment judgment. Vanover v. Cook, 260 F.3d 1182, 1185 (2001).
14. Motion filed by judgment creditor to revive dormant judgment held untimely. O'Connor v. Midwest Pipe Fabrications, Inc., 198 F. Supp. 2d 1275, 1279 (2002).
15. Oklahoma law to be applied to unsatisfied child support judgment being enforced in Kansas; specific provisions of K.S.A. 23-9,604 control over general dormancy and revivor sections, K.S.A. 60-2403 and 60-2404. Hale v. Hale, 33 Kan. App. 2d 769, 108 P.3d 1012 (2005).
16. Child support judgments that were not void on July 1, 2007, do not become dormant. State ex rel. SRS v. Cleland, 42 Kan. App. 2d 482, 213 P.3d 1091 (2009).
17. District courts should exercise caution when using equitable principles to extinguish legal rights, particularly when the timeframe for enforcing those rights has been defined by statute, and a court analyzing whether laches applies under such circumstances should consider the statutory landscape defining the legal enforceability of court orders. In re Marriage of Doud & Modrcin, 59 Kan. App. 2d 244, 480 P.3d 800 (2020).