Distinction between a money judgment & a judgment lien; Whether the trial court’s “Judgment Confirming Arbitrator’s Award” should be treated as a judgment renewable within 10 years pursuant to MCL 600.5809(3) or as a judgment lien that must be renewed within 5 years under MCL 600.2801 & 600.2809; “Judgment lien”; MCL 600.2801(c); “Noncontractual money obligation”; MCL 600.5809; The Construction Lien Act (CLA); Ronnisch Constr Group, Inc v Lofts on the Nine, LLC; , The Michigan Judgment Lien Act (MJLA); Thomas v Dutkavich

The court held that the trial court properly granted defendants’ motion to set aside a judgment renewal, characterizing its “judgment” as a lien, finding the judgment was “much more a lien than a ‘noncontractual money obligation.’” Over two decades ago, plaintiffs filed a construction lien on defendants’ property. The parties eventually entered into binding arbitration. The arbitrator significantly reduced the lien, and the trial court entered a “Judgment Confirming Arbitration Award.” Almost a decade later, it granted plaintiffs’ ex parte motion to renew the judgment. Defendants successfully moved to “set aside [the] improper judgment lien renewal.” On appeal, the court noted that the entry of the Judgment Confirming Arbitration Award not only “confirmed and incorporated the arbitrator’s award, but also stated clearly that ‘this Judgment may be recorded with the St. Clair County Register of Deeds.’ And, in fact, plaintiffs recorded the judgment in short order as ‘an encumbrance in favor of a judgment creditor against a judgment debtor’s interest in real property,’ just as MCL 600.2801(c) defines a ‘judgment lien.’” The court rejected plaintiffs’ contention that “a judgment lien can only arise after the entry of a judgment, especially in circumstances such as this where the judgment itself expressly contemplates the filing of that document as ‘an encumbrance in favor of a judgment creditor against a judgment debtor’s interest in real property.’” It also did not accept plaintiffs’ contention that the trial court’s ruling deprived them “of a remedy to protect their longstanding claim against” defendants. It noted the “MJLA allows for rerecording of a judgment lien ‘by recording with the register of deeds, not less than 120 days before the initial expiration date under [MCL 600.2809(1)], a second notice of judgment lien that has been certified by the clerk of the court that entered the judgment.’” Plaintiffs chose not to utilize “that rerecording opportunity, so the five-year expiration date of” the judgment lien came and went. Their “inaction cannot be laid at the feet of any court or opposing party. Simply put, plaintiffs chose to take no action for nearly ten years, and in the meantime they gave up the statutory right to protect their financial interest through the rerecording process set forth in the MJLA, MCL 600.2809(4).” Affirmed.