Favourable decision obtained: Statute of limitations on the right to enforce an equalisation payment set by a property-division judgment

Final decision obtained in court

An enforceable title does not have unlimited enforcement power over time. This is a basic rule, but in practice it remains one of the most frequently overlooked — both by creditors, who return years later to a claim they never pursued, and by debtors, who assume that a final court judgment can be enforced at any time.

In a recently concluded case, we obtained, on appeal, a full reversal of the first-instance judgment and a finding that the right to enforce claims established by a property-division judgment was time-barred.

The facts

Under a civil judgment issued in 2014 and final as of March 2015, following a property-division dispute, our client was ordered to make two equalisation payments.

For more than ten years, the creditor did not initiate enforcement proceedings and took no action capable of interrupting the limitation period. Later, the creditor expressed an intention to enforce the title, even though the right to enforce it had long since lapsed.

Our firm obtained the outcome through an application asking the court to find that the right to enforce that title was time-barred. The first-instance court dismissed the application as unfounded; we then appealed the first-instance judgment and obtained a final, favourable decision.

The legal issue

At stake was the legal nature of the equalisation payment and, consequently, the applicable limitation period.

Under Article 706(1) of the Civil Procedure Code, the right to enforce a judgment is time-barred after 3 years, unless the law provides otherwise, with a 10-year period applying to titles issued in matters of rights in rem (property rights).

A property-division judgment does indeed affect the co-owners’ rights in rem. The equalisation payment, however, is not a right in rem: it is a monetary claim, a payment obligation meant to balance the shares allocated. The distinction is not theoretical — it determines whether the title could still be enforced in 2026, or whether its enforcement power had already lapsed back in 2018.

The court’s decision

The Mureș Tribunal allowed the appeal, fully reversed the first-instance judgment, and granted the application, finding that the right to enforce both claims was time-barred. The respondent was ordered to pay the appeal costs. The decision is final.

What this means in practice

Once the limitation period has run, the effect is radical: under Article 707(2) of the Civil Procedure Code, the enforceable title loses its enforcement power. This is not a mere delay or a matter of discretion — the creditor can no longer initiate enforcement based on that judgment.

Three useful takeaways:

For debtors. The existence of a final judgment that has gone unenforced for several years does not mean you remain exposed indefinitely. Checking the limitation period and any acts that may have interrupted it is the first step — and it can be decisive.

For creditors. An enforceable title obtained through effort does not manage itself. The limitation period runs from the date the right to enforce arises, and the mere passage of time, without concrete steps, extinguishes it permanently.

For both parties. The legal classification of the claim — as a right in rem or a personal right — is not a technical detail. It can completely change the outcome, and in property-division matters this distinction is frequently overlooked.