We’re one step closer to answering one of Tennessee collection law’s greatest mysteries: Can a judgment creditor record a copy of its judgment as soon as it is signed by the Judge, or must the creditor wait 30 days?
The question arises under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 62.01, which says that “…no execution shall issue upon a judgment, nor shall proceedings be taken for its enforcement until the expiration of 30 days after its entry…”
The exact issue is this: Is recording a certified copy of a judgment an “execution”? I’ve been asked that for years, but never quite knew the answer.
For starters, what’s the statutory authority for recording a judgment lien? I look at Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 69, which is titled “Execution on Judgments,” and includes all the different ways you can “execute” on judgments (garnishments, levies, sheriff’s sales, liens). This list includes Tenn. R. Civ. P. 69.07(2), “Execution on Realty,” which provides the exact process to record a judgment lien against the judgment debtor’s realty.
And let’s be honest; why would you record a judgment in the first place? Under Tennessee law, the recording of a judgment with the register’s office creates a lien on real property, meaning that the debtor can’t sell, refinance, or transfer the property without dealing with the judgment. It’s a pretty powerful tool to get paid. That’s why you’d record it, and as fast as possible.
If the point is to get paid–and as soon as possible–that looks a lot like enforcement, right? But is that “execution”? Should we also throw around terms like “collection” or “attachment” too?
It’s been a mess because the statutes and rules all seem to use these different terms interchangeably, except when they aren’t interchangeable.
Faced with this exact issue, the Davidson County Chancery Court had to make sense of these competing terms and concepts. In an Order from February 2, 2024, the Court found the mere act of recording a judgment during the Rule 62.01 stay period “was not premature ….because the filing of judgment lien is not an act of enforcement.”
In doing so, the Court referenced the pleadings filed in the matter, which drew reasoning from Tenn. Code Ann. § 25-5-101(b)(1) and the competing concepts of “final” judgments found in Tenn. R. Civ. P. 54 and 62.01. Further, given the Court’s brief, but specific, factual finding, the Court seems to agree with the opposing brief’s distinction between the acts of recording a lien versus enforcing a lien, arguing that only the latter would violate Rule 62.01. The full Order is attached below.
It’s an important issue that has long vexed creditor rights lawyers, debtor’s counsel, and even court clerks. I’ve had court clerks only begrudgingly provide me with a certified copy of a judgment on the day of entry (and reminding me that I “can’t do anything with it for 30 days”).
This Order and the related reasoning may provide a roadmap for future arguments on this issue, which comes up far more frequently than you’d think.
I watched these trial court proceedings pretty closely, and I’m glad to see a creditor-friendly result. The underlying initial pleadings are also attached below.
Creditors Rights 101 