Johnson v. Haleyville Mobile Home Supply, Inc., 84-481
Decision Date | 20 September 1985 |
Docket Number | No. 84-481,84-481 |
Parties | David Cromwell JOHNSON v. HALEYVILLE MOBILE HOME SUPPLY, INC. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
William H. Atkinson of Fite, Davis, Atkinson & Bentley, Hamilton, for appellant.
Jackie O. Isom, Hamilton, for appellee.
This is an appeal by David C. Johnson from the determination by the trial court that the judgment lien of Haleyville Mobile Home Supply, Inc. (HMH) against the property of Jerry W. and Marcelle Lewis was superior to a deed which conveyed title to some of their property to him. In a previous decision, this Court held that the judgment secured by HMH was properly entered against the Lewises. Lewis v. Haleyville Mobile Home Supply, Inc., 447 So.2d 691 (Ala.1984). The issue on this appeal is whether HMH obtained the rights of a judgment creditor for the purposes of Code 1975, § 35-4-90, on the date of the initial entry of judgment by the trial court or on the date the Lewises' motion for new trial was denied.
Most of the evidence presented at trial consisted of documents concerning the initial suit between HMH and the Lewises. The facts presented in these documents can best be summarized in the following chronology provided in Johnson's brief to the Court.
Appellant's brief, page 8.
Code 1975, § 35-4-90(a), provides:
"(a) All conveyances of real property, deeds, mortgages, deeds of trust or instruments in the nature of mortgages to secure any debts are inoperative and void as to purchasers for a valuable consideration, mortgagees and judgment creditors without notice, unless the same have been recorded before the accrual of the right of such purchasers, mortgagees or judgment creditors."
Johnson first argues that, for the purposes of this statute, HMH's rights as a judgment creditor did not accrue until the Lewises' motion for new trial was denied by the trial court on July 27, 1983. We disagree with Johnson's contention. A determination of when rights under a judgment "accrue" is not dependent upon the outcome of a post-judgment motion.
Under Code 1975, § 6-9-211, a judgment, upon which a certificate of judgment is duly filed, constitutes a lien against the property of the defendant located in the county of filing. In this case, HMH received its judgment against the Lewises on May 25, 1983, and duly filed a certificate of judgment on the same day. As of that day, pursuant to the provisions of Code 1975, § 6-9-211, HMH had a valid judgment lien on the property of the Lewises. Only Rule 62(a), A.R.Civ.P., which provides for an automatic stay of execution on a judgment for a period of thirty days, prevented HMH from enforcing its lien. At any time after that thirty-day period, HMH could have executed on its judgment regardless of the fact that a post-judgment motion might be pending. 1 See, 11 C. Wright and A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2903 (1983).
Johnson additionally argues that the trial judge in the initial suit between HMH and the Lewises, entered a new judgment on July...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Smith v. Arrow Transp. Co., Inc.
...recorded instruments, regardless of the date of execution or delivery of those other instruments. Johnson v. Haleyville Mobile Home Supply, Inc., 477 So.2d 328 (Ala.1985). Ala.Code 1975, § 6-9-210, sets out the procedure for recording a certificate of judgment. Betty does not contend that A......
-
Hagan v. Kessler (In re Kessler)
...recorded instruments, regardless of the date of execution or delivery of those other instruments. Johnson v. Haleyville Mobile Home Supply, Inc., 477 So. 2d 328 (Ala.1985).Smith v. Arrow Transp. Co., 571 So. 2d 1003, 1006 (Ala. 1990). See also Ala. Code § 34-4-90; Robert L. McCurley, Jr., R......
-
Baldwin County Federal Savings Bank v. Central Bank of the South
...all subsequently recorded conveyances are void as to that judgment. It directs this Court's attention to Johnson v. Haleyville Mobile Home Supply, Inc., 477 So.2d 328 (Ala.1985), as support for its We do not agree. Section 35-4-90(a) gives judgment creditors, purchasers, and mortgagees prio......
-
In re Sintz, Bankruptcy No. 92-12062. Adv. No. 92-1313.
...held that "recording a judgment is not the same as executing a judgment." Kiker, 342 So.2d at 748. Moreover, in Johnson v. Haleyville Mobile Home Supply, 477 So.2d 328 (Ala.1985), the supreme court concluded Rule 62 only prevents enforcement of the judgment for thirty (30) days; it does not......