Press "Enter" to skip to content

Schmierer v. The Tribal Trust, 2018-NMCA-058

This is our very first post! We start with a story that has been going on for three decades, and hopefully we can borrow a bit of that longevity!

The facts underlying this case are fascinating. Maura Schmierer was the survivor of forced confinement by an alleged cult in California, who escaped after three months of being locked in ashed by the group. Once free, she sued the group and some of its members in California and obtained a default judgment against them in 1989 for more than a million dollars. Judgment in hand, she then embarked on a multi-decade and multi-state crusade to enforce her judgment against any property she can locate that comes into the hands of the judgment debtors. That committed search eventually led her to New Mexico, where she brought suit to domesticate her judgment and to pursue real estate owned by the judgment debtors to satisfy that judgment. Her resolve has been impressive; in this case alone, she has been seeking enforcement of her judgment since 2004.

The issue brought to the Court of Appeals arose from the timing of the filing of the New Mexico action, and brings forward the tension between conflict of law principles and the Full Faith and Credit Clause when domesticating a foreign judgment. California law allows a judgment creditor to enforce a judgment for 10 years, and a further 10 years provided the judgment is revived. New Mexico law, however, limits enforceability of a judgment to 14 years. Schmierer did properly renew the judgment in California in 1999 (originally entered in 1989); in California, she would have been able to initiate an enforcement action until 2009. However, the New Mexico statute of limitations had run in 2003, 14 years from 1989, and she did not file her New Mexico action until 2004. The trial court held that the judgment was, as a result, unenforceable, and Schmierer appealed.

The Court of Appeals found that prior New Mexico case law, Fischoff v. Tometich, 1991-NMCA-144, 113 N.M. 271, 824 P.2d 1073 and Walter E. Heller Western, Inc. v. Ditto, 1998-NMCA-068, 125 N.M. 226, 959 P.2d 560, seemed to indicate that the New Mexico 14-year limitation would apply. However, the court then conducted an analysis of full faith and credit requirements under Roche v. McDonald, 275 U.S. 449, 451-52 (1928) and its progeny from the Supreme Court to determine whether it was necessary to defer to California’s statute of limitations. While many of the cases allowed a state court to refuse a foreign judgment based on its own statute of limitations, a distinction was drawn on the question of revival. Whereas a statute of limitations on its own is purely procedural, a provision for revival of judgment can be a substantive policy. After surveying other state court decisions, the appellate panel adopted the position that a revived judgment must be treated in the same way it is treated in the judgment’s forum state.

Therefore, because California law allowed for a revival of the judgment, and the judgment was properly revived, the New Mexico trial court had to observe the 2009 limitation on the judgment under California law, not the 2003 limitation should New Mexico law be applied. The takeaway from the case is if you are looking to domesticate and enforce a judgment, and you are worried about the judgment expiring, it is best to look to the forum state’s laws regarding revival of judgments, and you may find that there is more time available for your client. It is not a commonly encountered situation, but if you do have a client bring you an aged judgment, this decision gives a clear starting point for your analysis.

The other result is that Schmierer’s lengthy pursuit of thedefendants’ assets can continue, and personally I look forward to watching thecase as it proceeds!

Decision available at Schmierer v. The Tribal Trust, 2018-NMCA-058