Ashworth v. Hankins
| Decision Date | 12 December 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 5--4077,5--4077 |
| Citation | 408 S.W.2d 871,241 Ark. 629 |
| Parties | Leon ASHWORTH et ux., Appellants, v. H. C. HANKINS and Mrs. H. C. Hankins, Appellees. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Murphy & Burch, Fayetteville, for appellants.
Putman, Davis & Bassett, Fayetteville, for appellees.
On October 18, 1962 appellants brought an equity action against appellees for specific performance of a contract for the sale of certain real property. Both parties resided in Washington County where the subject property was situated. A lis pendens was duly filed by appellants on October 18, 1962.
At trial on March 29, 1963, the Court sustained a demurrer to plaintiffs' evidence and a decree was entered for defendants (appellees here). An appeal was perfected.
Thereafter, on May 24, 1963, while the case was on appeal, appellees executed and delivered for a valuable consideration a deed to the property to one Ollie Tackett. This deed was duly recorded on May 29, 1963.
On November 30, 1964, this Court reversed and remanded the cause, holding that appellants had made a prima facie case for specific performance. Ashworth v. Hankins, 238 Ark. 745, 384 S.W.2d 254 (1964).
After remand, appellees filed a motion to dismiss appellants' complaint for want of equity jurisdiction. The motion stated that appellants no longer owned the subject property; that there was no longer any basis for equity jurisdiction, and that plaintiffs' complaint should be dismissed without prejudice.
Plaintiffs' response was that a lis pendens had been filed; that any grantee of the subject matter took the property with notice and subject to the ultimate outcome of the case, and that the Chancery Court had jurisdiction to either cancel and set aside the deed executed by the defendants or, in the alternative, to award plaintiffs damages.
For reversal appellants contend that the Chancery Court erred in granting appellees' motion to dismiss.
It is appellants' position that the Chancery Court (1) had jurisdiction to grant specific performance of the contract and (2) had jurisdiction in the alternative to award appellants damages.
Appellants urge that the lis pendens, filed pursuant to Ark.Stat.Ann. § 27--501 (Repl.1962), put the subsequent purchaser on notice and therefore the property was conveyed subject to the outcome of this suit, including appellate review.
In the case of Mitchell & Shaw v. Federal Land Bank of St. Louis, Mo., 206 Ark. 253, 174 S.W.2d 671 (1943), where a lis pendens was filed, we quoted with approval from 38 C.J. 4 as follows:
'One who acquires from a party an interest in property which is at that time involved in a litigation in a court having jurisdiction of the subject-matter and of the person of the one from whom the interest is acquired, takes subject to the rights of the parties to the litigation, as finally determined by the judgment or decree, and is as conclusively bound by the results of the litigation as if he had been a party thereto from the outset.'
The applicable lis pendens statute, Ark.Stat.Ann. § 27--501, supra, states as follows:
'27--501. Notice--Contents--Recording--Effect.--To render the filing of any suit at law or in equity affecting the title or any lien on real estate or personal property constructive notice to a bona fide purchaser or mortgagee of any such real estate or personal property, it shall be necessary for the plaintiff or any one of the plaintiffs, if there by more than one plaintiff, or their attorneys or agents to file for record with the recorder of deeds of the county in which the property to be affected by such constructive notice is situated a notice of the pendency of such suit, setting forth the title of the cause and the general object thereof, * * *.'
Therefore, the purpose of a lis pendens is to put bona fide purchasers or mortgagees upon notice that the title to certain real or personal property is being litigated. See 54 C.J.S. Lis Pendens § 1, p. 571, from which we quote:
'It is commonly stated that the doctrine of lis pendens is based on considerations of public policy and convenience, which forbid a litigant to give rights to others, pending the litigation, so as to affect the proceedings of the court then progressing to enforce those rights, the rule being necessary to the administration of justice in order that decisions in pending suits may be binding and may be given full effect, by keeping the subject matter in controversy within the power of the court until final adjudication, that there may be an end to litigation, and to preserve the property that the purpose of the pending suit may not be defeated by successive alienations and transfers of title.'
Litigation is obviously not completed until appellate review is had in cases where appeals are perfected. We therefore hold, and possibly for the first time on this precise point, that the statutory effect of a lis pendens follows the litigation to its conclusion.
We are supported in this rule by case authorities from other jurisdictions. We quote from Stuart...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Guest v. Lange
...See D.C. Code§ 42–1207(d)(1) (2010) ; Haw. Rev. Stat. § 501–151 (2012); Va. Code Ann.§ 8.01–269 (West 2014) ; Ashworth v. Hankins , 241 Ark. 629, 408 S.W.2d 871, 873 (1966) ; Top Rail Ranch Estates, LLC v. Walker , 327 P.3d 321, 334–35 (Colo. App. 2014) ; Vonmitschke–Collande v. Kramer , 84......
-
Priddy v. Mayer Aviation, Inc., 75--347
...contract when the relief sought is specific performance. Loveless v. Diehl, 236 Ark. 129, 235 Ark. 805, 364 S.W.2d 317; Ashworth v. Hankins, 241 Ark. 629, 408 S.W.2d 871. Equity does have power to order specific performance of a contract to insure or to deliver a policy of insurance, even t......
-
Wheeling Corp. v. Columbus & Ohio River Rr.
...pendens will apply during the pendency of an appeal. 66 Ohio Jurisprudence 3d (1986) 471, Lis Pendens, Section 32; Ashworth v. Hankins (1966), 241 Ark. 629, 408 S.W.2d 871; Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Charlton (1993), 17 Cal.App.4th 1066, 21 Cal.Rptr.2d 686; Perry Park Country Club, Inc. v. ......
-
Winkler v. Andrus
...of such an action pending in a United States district court as it relates to real property in such State.6 See also Ashworth v. Hankins, 241 Ark. 629, 408 S.W.2d 871 (1966); Pearson v. Logan, 208 Okl. 234, 255 P.2d 255, 258 (1953); Carl v. DeToffol, 223 Minn. 24, 25 N.W.2d 479, 483 (1946); ......