Mandate Issued: 03/27/2019
FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TULSA COUNTY, OKLAHOMA HONORABLE
MILLIE OTEY, TRIAL JUDGE
Pratt, BARBER & BARTZ, Tulsa, Oklahoma, for
O. McArtor, Amanda C. Mims, Tulsa, Oklahoma, for
Barbara G. Swinton, Judge.
In the proceeding filed by Plaintiff/Appellee Automotive
Finance Corporation (Creditor) to enforce a foreign judgment
pursuant to the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act,
12 O.S. 2011 §§ 719-726 (the Act), 
Defendant/Appellant Marsha Annette Rogers, individually and
d/b/a Automotive Solutions (Debtor) appeals a court order
denying her motion seeking a determination of dormancy of
judgment. Based on the record and applicable law, we reverse
The appellate record includes only six items. The first is a
"Default Judgment Entry" dated November 6, 2006 and
signed by a judge from the U.S. District Court in the
Southern District of Indiana, Case No. 1:06-cv-1417-SEB-JPG.
The federal court judgment finds in favor of Creditor and
against Debtor  and grants a total award of $340,
560.50 plus attorney's fee and post-judgment interest.
Creditor "registered" the "authenticated"
federal judgment in Oklahoma by filing it with the Court
Clerk of Tulsa County on June 10, 2009, Case No.
The second item is a "Garnishment Affidavit" filed
March 18, 2010 in CJ-2009-4308. The Affidavit states that
Marsha Annette Rogers lists Century Bank as the garnishee and
alleges it possessed non-exempt property of Debtor.
The third item in the record, a "Notice of Bankruptcy
Filing," was filed in CJ-2009-4308 on August 23, 2010.
The Bankruptcy Notice states "the above-named Debtors,
Glenn David Chafin and Marsha Annette Chafin, filed on August
4, 2010, a Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceeding in the United
States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of
Oklahoma, such being numbered 1-12686-M."
The fourth item is a "Notice of Renewal of
Judgment" that Creditor filed on October 23, 2015. In
pertinent part, the Notice of Renewal states "date of
Filing with the Court Clerk: November 6, 2006 " and
confirmed that no notice of renewal of Judgment has been
previously filed with the Court Clerk.
The fifth item is a motion filed by Debtor in CJ-2009-4308 on
August 11, 2016, seeking, inter alia,  a
determination that the "foreign judgment... out of the
U.S. Dist. Court of Southern District of Indiana [filed] in
this Court on June 10, 2009" is dormant and
unenforceable as a matter of law. Citing 12 O.S. 2011 §
735, Debtor argued "no execution or renewal of judgment
was filed in the matter until a notice of renewal of judgment
was filed on October 23, 2015 more than five (5) years after
the Garnishment Affidavit and Summons was filed on
March 18, 2010." 
The sixth item, the trial court's Order filed December 1,
2016, states an assets hearing was held on November 11, 2016,
at which Debtor appeared with counsel. The order further
states the trial court denied Debtor's motion, finding
Creditor's "judgment is still enforceable."
Debtor then filed this appeal, in which no transcript of the
hearing was provided because "no stenographic reporting
The parties do not include a standard of review in their
respective brief(s). Selection of the appropriate standard of
appellate review requires the correct characterization of the
trial court proceedings. In re Assessment of Personal
Property Taxes Against Missouri Gas Energy, Div. of Southern
Union Co., for Tax Years 1998, 1999, and 2000, 2008 OK
94, ¶ 17, 234 P.3d 938, 946. This proceeding was filed
pursuant to the Act, the purpose of which is enforcement or
collection of foreign judgments. Taracorp, Ltd.
Dailey, 2018 OK 32, ¶ 22, 419 P.3d 217, 220. Said
judgments are treated the same as if they were initially
issued in Oklahoma." Id.
The Act's single filing requirement of "an
authenticated foreign judgment" alone suggests it is a
special proceeding.  Support is further found in §725
of the Act, which provides "[t]he right of a judgment
creditor to bring an action to enforce his judgment instead
of proceeding under this act remains unimpaired."
Relying, in part, on § 725, Oklahoma courts agree
foreign judgments filed pursuant to the Act are not civil
actions to which 12 O.S. 2011 § 95 's three year
statute of limitations applies. See Ford Motor Credit Co.
v. Kurz, 2015 OK CIV APP 16, ¶ 5, 344 P.3d 1100;
Producers Grain Corp. v. Carroll, 1976 OK CIV APP 3,
¶ 10-11, 546 P.2d 285, 287-288 ("The Act was
designed as a viable alternative to the traditional method of
enforcing foreign judgments by separate lawsuit in which the
judgment was considered nothing more than a contract
debt...[and] lacked the force of a domestic judgment, except
for evidentiary purposes.")
However, the appeal in this case is not brought from an order
determining compliance with the Act.  Rather, according to
the certified court appearance docket,  the proceeding that
is subject to this appeal was filed pursuant to
Oklahoma's post-judgment discovery and collection
provisions under Title 12 O.S. § 841 et seq.
Bowles v. Goss, 2013 OK CIV APP 76, ¶ 3, 309
P.3d 150. Such matters are "supplemental proceedings in
aid of execution and are equitable in nature."
Id., (citing Stone v. Coleman, 1976 OK 182,
¶ 2, 557 P.2d 904). As here, a "proceeding to
disclose assets" pursuant to § 842 is "a
special proceeding in an action after judgment."
Weaver v. Fourth Nat. Bank of Tulsa, 1953 OK 329,
¶ 4, 263 P.2d 194. A § 842 proceeding is commonly
known as a "hearing on assets." See
Bowles, ¶ 21. In a § 842 proceeding, a
debtor's challenge to the enforceability of a judgment
under § 735 is a legal question for the court that is
reviewed de novo. Chandler-Frates & Reitz v.
Kostich, 1981 OK 74, 630 P.2d 1287. 
with 12 O.S. § 735
Both parties cite 3M Dozer as authority for their
opposing positions on the single question Debtor raises on
appeal -- whether the bankruptcy code tolls Oklahoma's
dormancy statute, 12 O.S. 2011 § 735, during
Debtor's § 362(a) automatic stay to allow Creditor
to file a notice of renewal after the judgment's
expiration. Section 735 provides that a judgment "shall
become unenforceable and of no effect" unless,