In 1932, the Illinois legislature enacted a law providing that it was not necessary to use a writ of scire fatias to revive a judgment and that any relief available by that writ could be had through an ordinary civil action at law by filing a complaint and issuing summons as in other civil cases.
This petition was to be served pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 106, which governed service of petitions to revive judgments.
However, some parties continued to file a new action to revive a prior judgment (22) To further complicate matters, a line of cases arose in the fourth district holding that a petition for contempt for nonpayment of child support revived a judgment.
While Justice Freeman's concurrence noted that the proper procedure would have been to revive the judgment first and then address the collateral attack upon the judgment, (30) the majority's resolution of the case arguably suggests that collateral attacks against the original judgment should be considered before revival of the judgment.
In First National Bank in Toledo v Adkins, (37) the fourth district took the position that the expiration of the seven-year period for reviving a judgment did not extinguish a lien when the judgment debtor had previously obtained a discharge in bankruptcy and that a creditor could revive the judgment lien against the property in rem even after seven years.
The 2002 passage of 735 ILCS 5/2-1602 codifies a creditor's right to revive a judgment after bankruptcy as to the property that a lien attached before the filing of the bankruptcy action.
A petition to revive the judgment must be filed in the original case in which the judgment was entered.
The petition to revive a judgment must recite the original date and amount of the judgment, court costs expended, accrued interest, and credits to the judgment, if any.
Service of the notice of the petition to revive a judgment is to be made according to Supreme Court Rule 106.