Bailey, J.
Case Summary
H & S Financial, Inc. (“H & S”), purportedly the assignee of a judgment owned by Absolute Resolution Corporation, as the assignee of C1 Professional Trucking Center (“C1 Center”), appeals the denial of its motion to correct error. [Footnote omitted.] The motion challenged an order of the Warren Township Small Claims Court, which precluded H & S from pursuing proceedings supplemental to enforce a 2003 small claims judgment obtained by C1 Center against Donald Parnell.
H & S articulates a single issue: whether Indiana law provides for a statute of limitations applicable to proceedings supplemental. Because H & S has not been substituted as a party and there has been no determination that H & S is a plaintiff owning the described judgment against the defendant, thus permitted by Indiana Trial Rule 69(E) to pursue proceedings supplemental, we dismiss the purported appeal. [Footnote omitted.]
….
After a hearing at which H & S presented no evidence showing that it owned the judgment at issue, the trial court effectively denied H & S’s motion by entering an order that still listed C1 Center as the named plaintiff. In this order, the trial court erred in stating that a statute of limitation expired ten years after the judgment was obtained. In the order denying the motion to correct error, the trial court again erroneously stated that the statute of limitations to execute on the judgment had expired and noted that no party had renewed the judgment.
Indiana Code Section 34-55-9-2(2), referenced by the small claims court, provides that all final judgments for the recovery of money constitute a lien upon real estate and chattels real until the expiration of ten years after the judgment is issued. [Footnote omitted.] Judgment liens expire after ten years. Id. Prior to that, a judgment lien automatically attaches to the judgment debtor’s real property located in the county where the judgment was entered or is subsequently filed. See id; Lewis v. Rex Metal Craft, Inc., 831 N.E.2d 812, 822 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (Mathias, J., concurring). The judgment itself, however, is still valid, and proceedings supplemental are available to enforce the judgment, for another ten years. See Lewis, 831 N.E.2d at 822.
After a period of twenty years, a judgment is presumed to be satisfied. Indiana Code section 34-11-2-12 provides that “[e]very judgment and decree of any court of record of the United States, of Indiana, or of any other state shall be considered satisfied after the expiration of twenty (20) years.” We have long held, however, that this statue does not “destroy” a judgment twenty years after it was entered. Lewis, 831 N.E.2d at 818 (citing Odell v. Green, 121 N.E. 791 (Ind. Ct. App. 1919) (citing predecessor statute), denying reh’g). Instead, this statute merely creates a presumption that the judgment has been satisfied after a period of twenty years. Id. at 818-19. Thereafter, a judgment holder may still seek to satisfy a judgment. Id. The judgment debtor may then avail himself or herself “of the presumption of satisfaction of a judgment upon the passage of twenty years” by pleading the defense of payment. Id. Only if the judgment debtor has done so does the burden shift to the judgment holder to rebut this presumption. See id. Thus, the presumption that a judgment has been satisfied must be pleaded and, if so pleaded, may be rebutted. Id.
Even though judgments do not expire, i.e., are not destroyed, by the passage of twenty years, “most sophisticated judgment creditors,” will ‘“renew’ their judgments shortly before the expiration of the first (and each successive) decade after judgment.” Id. at 822 (Mathias, J., concurring). Such renewals “may take place ad infinitum.” Id.
C1 Center did not renew its judgment and did not seek leave of court to execute the judgment against Parnell’s real estate…
That said, H & S contends that the relevant issue is not whether a judgment lien on real property or chattels real expired pursuant to Indiana Code Section 34- 55-9-2, but whether the holder of an equitable lien may conduct proceedings supplemental unrestricted by a statute of limitations…
….
…Even if proceedings supplemental are chronologically available, they must be initiated by a judgment owner entitled to enforcement. Indiana Trial Rule 69(E) provides that “proceedings supplemental to execution may be enforced by verified motion or with affidavits in the court where the judgment is rendered” alleging that “the plaintiff owns the described judgment against the defendant” and that the “plaintiff has no cause to believe that levy of execution against the defendant will satisfy the judgment[.]” Here, in contrast to Lewis, plaintiff C1 Center was not pursuing proceedings supplemental.
H & S purports to own the judgment granted to C1 Center. But H & S filed no verified motion or affidavit to satisfy the requirements of Rule 69(E)…
Conclusion
H & S is not a party of record nor did H & S show entitlement, as “a plaintiff owning the described judgment against the defendant,” Trial Rule 69(E), to conduct proceedings supplemental to enforce a judgment against Parnell.
Dismissed.
Tavitas, J., and Kenworthy, J., concur.