Mathias, J.
Autovest, L.L.C. appeals the trial court’s dismissal of its complaint to renew a judgment. According to the trial court, a prior judgment may be enforced only through proceedings supplemental under the original cause number. The trial court’s judgment is erroneous as a matter of law, and we therefore reverse the court’s dismissal of Autovest’s renewal complaint.
….
On appeal, Autovest asserts that the trial court erred when it sua sponte dismissed Autovest’s renewal complaint. We agree.
As we have made clear:
Because of the confusing complexity of execution and proceedings supplemental, and the added uncertainty caused by . . . attendant decade-long time periods, most sophisticated judgment creditors “renew” their judgments shortly before the expiration of the first (and each successive) decade after judgment. Such renewal actions may take place ad infinitum.
…. Such a complaint enables the judgment creditor to obtain a new judgment against the debtor and, thus, a new judgment lien on the debtor’s property. Id.
Accordingly, Autovest acted not only within its rights but prudently by filing its December 2023 renewal complaint against Abner under a new cause number. The trial court therefore erred as a matter of law when it dismissed Autovest’s renewal complaint, and we reverse the trial court’s judgment accordingly.
Reversed.
Brown, J., and Kenworthy, J., concur.