When it talks about renewal, it's talking about the situation where the judgment remains unpaid. So once it remains unpaid for five years, the judgment can be renewed for another 5 years for them to try to collect (garnishment, attachment, etc.). When a judgment is renewed, it reports on your credit reports like a new judgment.
The SOL that this statute is talking about is how long the plaintiff can go after you for payment of the judgment.
So to me, it looks like in Idaho, you actually could have two judgments reporting on the same account for a period of time:
~a judgment reports for 7 years
~unpaid at 5 years, so renewed
~old judgment reports for the original 7 years, but new judgment is reporting for another 7 years but starting at the 5 year mark.
~so the first reports for five years by itself, new judgment also reports for two years before first judgment falls off, then still another 5 years on the new judgment to add up to 7 years on that judgment
So you've managed to avoid all that. That's the good news. The bad news is that this statute does not impact the reporting period, so you are looking at the 7 years. But it counts from when the case was filed, not when the judgment was entered. So you're probably looking at the judgment coming off in the last quarter of 2014.
NY (for example) has its own FCRA, and limits the reporting of paid judgments to 7 years. Look and see if Idaho has its own (more restrictive) version of the FCRA. It won't be in the judgments section.
Message Edited by jesslyn on 08-25-2009 01:40 PM
