Paso County District Court No. 10CV5060 Honorable Eric
& Janson PC, Gerald P. Vargo, Yosy V. Janson, Nick J.
Deganhard, Lakewood, Colorado, for Plaintiff-Appellant
Appearance for Defendant-Appellee
Notarianni & Notarianni, Gregory J. Notarianni, Denver,
Colorado; Sweetbaum Sands Anderson P.C., Geoffrey P.
Anderson, Denver, Colorado, for Amicus Curiae Real Estate Law
Section of the Colorado Bar Association
J. Weiser, Attorney General, Kimberly S. Sorrells, Deputy
Assistant Attorney General, Denver, Colorado, for Amicus
Curiae Colorado Department of Personnel and Administration
1 Can a judgment creditor obtain a judgment lien against real
property when more than six years have passed since the entry
of the judgment? If so, what must the creditor do to obtain
such a lien?
2 We hold that a judgment creditor may obtain a judgment lien
at any time during the remaining life of the judgment, but if
more than six years have passed since the entry of the
judgment, the creditor must first revive the judgment and
record the transcript of the revived judgment. This is true
whether or not the judgment creditor previously obtained a
3 Because the district court erroneously concluded that
revival of the judgment was not required and denied the
creditor's request to revive the judgment, we reverse the
district court's order. I. Relevant Facts and Procedural
4 In 2010, the district court entered a money judgment in
favor of plaintiff, Security Credit Services, LLC, against
defendant, Winifried Hulterstrom. Security Credit obtained a
transcript of the judgment, but it is not clear from the
record whether Security Credit ever recorded the transcript
of judgment and thus obtained a judgment lien on real
property owned or later acquired by Hulterstrom in the county
in which the transcript was recorded. In any event, it
appears that Security Credit never foreclosed that lien on
any specific property.
5 In 2017, Marshall Recovery II LLC filed notice with the
district court that it had purchased the money judgment from
Security Credit. Not long after that, but more than six
years after the entry of judgment, Marshall moved under
C.R.C.P. 54(h) to revive the judgment. The district court
denied the motion, stating "[t]he 6-year period [from
the date of the judgment] expired on 10-13-16."
6 Marshall moved to reconsider, arguing that to obtain a new,
valid judgment lien, it had to first revive the judgment. The
district court denied this request a second time, stating as
C.R.S. 13-52-102(1) provides that a judgment lien expires six
years after entry of judgment unless, prior to the expiration
of the six-year period, the judgment is revived and a new
transcript of judgment recorded. In this case, as previously
noted, the judgment lien expired on 10-13-16. Accordingly, it
is too late to continue the original lien. The judgment
creditor may, if it wishes, record a new transcript of
judgment, which will create a new lien, effective as of the
date of recording. There is no need to revive the judgment
itself, since it is good for 20 years under C.R.S.
13-52-102(2) and reviving the judgment would not change the
effect of the new lien.
7 In what Marshall describes as a "last
ditch-effort" to obtain a revived judgment, it moved for
a hearing on the motion to revive the judgment, which the
district court ...