Background
In 2008, William Roach purchased a truck and financed $17,475.94, but defaulted on the loan. In 2013, the current holder Autovest, L.L.C. sued Roach, and the parties entered a consent judgment in the amount of $8,404.05 plus interest, with a structured payment plan. Roach made some payments but the parties dispute how much was paid. After a garnishment in 2015-2016 and more than eight years of inactivity, the judgment became dormant.
In November 2023, Autovest filed a motion to revive the dormant judgment. Roach opposed, claiming the debt was paid in full. When the magistrate requested Autovest to show cause, Autovest responded with an account statement showing all of Roach’s payments had been applied solely to interest, leaving a claimed principal balance. The magistrate granted the revival without an evidentiary hearing despite the disputed payment amounts.
The Court’s Holding
The Second District reversed the trial court’s judgment reviving the dormant judgment. The court found that R.C. 2325.04 authorizes revival of a dormant judgment but requires a determination of the amount currently owed. Here, the parties presented sharply conflicting accounts of the amount paid. Autovest’s statement of account reflected that all payments were applied to interest rather than principal, but the consent judgment specified that Roach would pay $8,404.05 with “no interest included” in the payment terms. The court found the trial court erred by granting revival without resolving this factual dispute through an evidentiary hearing.
The court also noted that the consent judgment’s payment terms, which stated payments would continue “until such time as $8,404.05 is paid in full (no interest included),” created ambiguity about how payments should be applied. The trial court was required to interpret the consent judgment and determine the correct balance before reviving it.
Key Takeaways
- When a debtor disputes the balance owed on a dormant judgment, the trial court must hold an evidentiary hearing to resolve the factual dispute before granting revival under R.C. 2325.04.
- Courts must interpret the terms of a consent judgment like any contract, including provisions about how payments are to be applied—particularly whether payments reduce principal, interest, or both.
- A creditor seeking to revive a dormant judgment bears the burden of establishing the current amount owed.
Why It Matters
This decision is significant for Ohio collections practitioners on both sides. It establishes that a trial court cannot simply rubber-stamp a motion to revive a dormant judgment when the debtor disputes the balance. The decision also highlights the critical importance of drafting clear consent judgment terms regarding payment application. The ambiguity in this consent judgment—which stated “no interest included” in the payment terms while also providing for statutory interest on the judgment—led directly to the dispute. Practitioners should ensure consent judgments specify exactly how payments will be credited and the total amount needed to satisfy the obligation.