In order to enforce a judgment from a different state (i.e. a “foreign judgment”) in Tennessee, a judgment creditor must domesticate that judgment, by filing a second action in Tennessee under the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act (Tenn. Code Ann. § 26-6-101, et. seq.), which creates a stream-lined process for creditors to follow.
The basic concept is this: Under the United States Constitution, one state will generally recognize the validity and enforceability of judicial orders entered in another state. Tennessee isn’t going to interfere with South Carolina’s court orders, and vice versa.
But what about court orders that have expired and are no longer enforceable in that original state?
In a strange and surprising twist, Tennessee Courts will allow enforcement of an expired out of state judgment, provided that the Tennessee order domesticating that judgment hasn’t, itself, expired.
That’s the holding of a recent opinion, Marie Vernon Wolfe v. Derrek Pugh, No. E2026-00043-COA-R3-CV, 2026 WL 2937374, at *4 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 30, 2026). In that case, a South Carolina Judgment entered on October 8, 2015 was domesticated in Tennessee by an order entered on August 14, 2017. When no action was taken to renew and extend the South Carolina Judgment, the creditor moved the Tennessee court to renew and extend the August 14, 2017 domestication order.
Wait a second. If the entire point of the Act is that one state will recognize the validity of another state’s judicial orders, shouldn’t that second state “stand down” when the other state’s order is no longer valid?
No, says the Tennessee Court of Appeals. Relying on Poser Invs., Inc. v. Old Nat’l Hosp. Co., No. M2024-00855-COA-R3-CV, 2026 WL 880504, at *2 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 31, 2026), and citing Tenn. Code Ann. § 26-6-104, the Court wrote that “when a judgment creditor files a foreign judgment in Tennessee under the Uniform Act, ‘the filed foreign judgment is the functional equivalent of a new Tennessee judgment for enforcement purposes’.” Id.
“Once properly domesticated in Tennessee, a foreign judgment may be enforced in Tennessee under Tennessee law and procedure irrespective of the laws and procedures of the state in which the foreign judgment was originally entered.” Wolfe v Pugh, at *4. Once “it was timely domesticated,” the expiration of the original judgment “is irrelevant to the enforceability of the domesticated Tennessee judgment.” Id. Pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 28-3-110(a)(2), a Tennessee judgment can be extended for ten more years, and this case involved a domesticated “Tennessee” judgment that had not yet expired.
Don’t get me wrong, I am always rooting for creditors on this blog. But this is a wild outcome. For instance, what if–after domestication–the original judgment was rendered void on jurisdiction or some technical basis (lack of service)? On this reasoning, as long as the Tennessee enrollment was procedurally proper, the original judgment being declared unenforceable could, arguably, be irrelevant.
I understand where the opinion is coming from. Tenn. Code Ann. § 26-6-104 very clearly says what it says. As a practice note, this is a good reminder to creditor lawyers to not be lazy and, in any foreign judgment proceeding, insist on obtaining a separate, signed Order that domesticates and enrolls the foreign judgment (and don’t just wait 30 days after service to start issuing garnishments).
