Summary
The Ohio Supreme Court held that, before the enactment of R.C. 2325.18(B), a judgment continued to accrue interest while dormant. The court concluded that Ohio’s dormancy statutes address the judgment’s effect as a lien and do not override statutes governing the accrual of judgment interest. The court affirmed the judgment reviving the debt with interest.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether a judgment continues to accrue interest during the period in which it is dormant.
- Whether the 2004 amendment to R.C. 2325.18(B), which prohibits interest from accruing during dormancy for purposes of calculating interest due on a revived judgment, applied to this judgment.
Holdings
- A judgment continues to accrue interest while it is dormant when it is not subject to R.C. 2325.18(B).
- R.C. 2325.18(B) did not govern this judgment because both the original judgment and its revival occurred before the amendment's effective date.
Key quotations
“We hold that a judgment continues to accrue interest while it is dormant, if not subject to R.C. 2325.18(B), enacted by 2004 Sub.H.B. No. 212, effective June 2, 2004.” (¶ 21)
“Thus, the dormancy statutes do not mention accrual of interest, but rather are directed to the legal effect of a judgment as a lien against property.” (¶ 14)
Factual background
The Ashland Municipal Court entered a 1990 default judgment against Mack for $1,718.98, with interest at 13 percent per annum from December 13, 1989. A certificate of judgment was issued in 1991, but no execution was issued for five years, causing the judgment to become dormant in 1996. Asset Acceptance filed a notice of assignment and sought revival in 2003, claiming approximately $7,000 based on interest accruing from the original judgment date; the trial court revived the judgment including interest and costs.
Procedural history
The Ashland Municipal Court entered a default judgment against Mack in 1990 for $1,718.98 plus 13 percent annual interest. After the judgment became dormant in 1996, Asset Acceptance, which claimed to have acquired the judgment, moved to revive it in 2003; the trial court revived the judgment for the principal amount plus interest and costs. The Fifth District affirmed, conflicting with the Eleventh District's decision in Huntington National Bank v. Battaglia, and certified the question to the Supreme Court of Ohio.