Wellington v. Wellington

Court of Appeals of Washington

Wellington v. Wellington

575 P.2d 1088, 19 Wash. App. 328, 1978 Wash. App. LEXIS 2103

CourtCourt of Appeals of Washington

DecidedFebruary 27, 1978

Docket4475-1

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 575 P.2d 1088 (Wellington v. Wellington) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Wellington v. Wellington, 575 P.2d 1088, 19 Wash. App. 328, 1978 Wash. App. LEXIS 2103 (Wash. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinions

Williams, J.

This action is based upon a foreign judgment. The cause was tried in the Snohomish County Superior Court and resulted in a judgment for unpaid child support.

The facts are that Dana and Edwin Wellington were divorced in California on September 20, 1968. The decree ordered Edwin to pay $100 per month for each of the three minor children. In January 1969, Edwin moved to Washington, and in February 1974, Dana brought this action. On January 7, 1976, the court recognized the [329]*329California judgment and ordered Edwin to pay $8,455 in back child support.

The Snohomish County action was commenced within the period of the 6-year statute of limitations. RCW 4.16-.040. The only question presented is whether support payments which accrued more than 6 years before adoption of the judgment in Washington are legally collectible. Edwin argues that they are not collectible because of the following statutes:

The party in whose favor a judgment of a court of record of this state has been, or may hereafter be, rendered, or his assignee, may have an execution issued for the collection or enforcement of the same, at any time within six years from the rendition thereof; . . .

(Italics ours.) RCW 6.04.010 in part; and

After the expiration of six years from the date of the entry of any judgment heretofore or hereafter rendered in this state, it shall cease to be a lien or charge against the estate or person of the judgment debtor, and no suit, action or other proceeding shall ever be had on any judgment rendered in this state by which the lien or duration of such judgment, claim or demand, shall be extended or continued in force for any greater or longer period than six years from the date of the entry of the original judgment, except as in RCW 4.56.225 provided.

(Italics ours.) RCW 4.56.210.

Edwin claims that despite the language of these statutes limiting them to judgments of "this state," they must operate to restrict the time within which the California judgment may be enforced in that state or in any other state. We disagree. The rule in this state is that if a judgment creditor, in good faith, timely commences an action upon a judgment of a sister state, he can, in effect, extend the duration of that judgment beyond the period of 6 years following its rendition. Roche v. McDonald, 158 Wash. 446, 291 P. 476 (1930).

[330]*330The Washington judgment is a new judgment, standing on its own, and the time period for executing upon it commenced to run from the date of its entry. RCW 6.04.010.

Judgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Williams, J.

This action is based upon a foreign judgment. The cause was tried in the Snohomish County Superior Court and resulted in a judgment for unpaid child support.

The facts are that Dana and Edwin Wellington were divorced in California on September 20, 1968. The decree ordered Edwin to pay $100 per month for each of the three minor children. In January 1969, Edwin moved to Washington, and in February 1974, Dana brought this action. On January 7, 1976, the court recognized the [329]*329California judgment and ordered Edwin to pay $8,455 in back child support.

The Snohomish County action was commenced within the period of the 6-year statute of limitations. RCW 4.16-.040. The only question presented is whether support payments which accrued more than 6 years before adoption of the judgment in Washington are legally collectible. Edwin argues that they are not collectible because of the following statutes:

The party in whose favor a judgment of a court of record of this state has been, or may hereafter be, rendered, or his assignee, may have an execution issued for the collection or enforcement of the same, at any time within six years from the rendition thereof; . . .

(Italics ours.) RCW 6.04.010 in part; and

After the expiration of six years from the date of the entry of any judgment heretofore or hereafter rendered in this state, it shall cease to be a lien or charge against the estate or person of the judgment debtor, and no suit, action or other proceeding shall ever be had on any judgment rendered in this state by which the lien or duration of such judgment, claim or demand, shall be extended or continued in force for any greater or longer period than six years from the date of the entry of the original judgment, except as in RCW 4.56.225 provided.

(Italics ours.) RCW 4.56.210.

Edwin claims that despite the language of these statutes limiting them to judgments of "this state," they must operate to restrict the time within which the California judgment may be enforced in that state or in any other state. We disagree. The rule in this state is that if a judgment creditor, in good faith, timely commences an action upon a judgment of a sister state, he can, in effect, extend the duration of that judgment beyond the period of 6 years following its rendition. Roche v. McDonald, 158 Wash. 446, 291 P. 476 (1930).

[330]*330The Washington judgment is a new judgment, standing on its own, and the time period for executing upon it commenced to run from the date of its entry. RCW 6.04.010.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

575 P.2d 1088, 19 Wash. App. 328, 1978 Wash. App. LEXIS 2103, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wellington-v-wellington-washctapp-1978.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack