Magnum Communications Limited appeals from the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to Gary Samoluk in this action to revive a dormant judgment. Because the grant of summary judgment in favor of Samoluk and the resultant dismissal of Magnum’s action was based upon the trial court’s incorrect interpretation and application of OCGA § § 9-12-60 and 9-12-61, we reverse. The record shows that in November 1984, Magnum obtained a judgment against Samoluk in the Superior Court of Cobb County case one. In December 1992, Magnum filed an action in the State Court of Cobb County to renew or revive the judgment it obtained in case one case two. In January 1998, Magnum filed a motion for summary judgment in case two, which was granted in September 1998, reviving the judgment in case one. When Magnum reviewed the court records in early 2004 in preparation for obtaining a fi. fa., however, it found the file in case two “substantially incomplete” in that “virtually all of the important documents” were missing. To ensure that Samoluk would not take advantage of the file’s status to argue that case two should be dismissed for want of a final order, Magnum filed the present action in February 2004 in the State Court of Cobb County. In this action, Magnum sought either a renewal of the original judgment in case one or a declaration that the judgment in case two had revived the original judgment. Cross-motions for summary judgment were filed, and the trial court granted Samoluk’s motion and denied that of Magnum.
In apparent reliance on Johnson v. Huggins , 7 Ga. App. 553 67 SE 217 1910, the trial court concluded that the original judgment in case one and the debt underlying that judgment became “more than simply dormant, but dead and unenforceable” in November 1994, ten years after the original judgment was entered. As quoted in Johnson , former Civil Code § 3761, in effect when Johnson was decided, appears to be identical to the present OCGA § § 9-12-60 and 9-12-61 in its provisions for dormancy and for reviving a dormant judgment. Former Civil Code § 3761 and OCGA § 9-12-60 a 1 both provide that a judgment becomes dormant and may not be enforced seven years after it is entered unless execution has been issued and entered on the general execution docket. Former Civil Code §3761 and OCGA § 9-12-61 both provide that once dormant, judgment may be revived at the judgment holder’s option either by an action or by scire facias within three years from the time it becomes dormant.
