Nixdorf v. Blount

• Decision Date: 09 June 1910
• Citation: 111 Va. 127,68 S.E. 258
• Parties: NIXDORF v. BLOUNT et al.
• Court: Virginia Supreme Court

68 S.E. 258

111 Va. 127

NIXDORF

v.BLOUNT et al.

Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia.

June 9, 1910.

1. Judgment (§ 780^*)—Lien—Property Affected.

Under "Code 1904, § 3567, making a money judgment a lien on land held by the debtor at or after the date thereof, a judgment binds improvements made by the debtor's vendee with notice at the date of his purchase of the judgment and a lis pendens to enforce it.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Judgment, Cent. Dig. §§ 1341, 1343-1349; Dec. Dig. § 780.*]

2. Improvements (§ 4*) — Compensation — Right to.

One can recover for improvements made on lands of another only where they are made under belief that hisxtitle is good.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Improvements, Cent. Dig. §§ 4-26; Dec. Dig. § 4.*]

3. Improvements (§ 1*)—Effect.

Permanent improvements upon land become part of it, and the owner must take notice that liens affecting the fee attach to such improvements. "

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Improvements, Cent. Dig. § 1; Dec. Dig. § 1.*]

Appeal from Circuit Court of City of Norfolk.

Suit by D. P. Blount against C. W. Tebault and others. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant Harry Nixdorf appeals. Affirmed.

J. L. Hubard and D. Tucker Brooke, for appellant

R. Randolph Hicks, for appellees.

WHITTLE, J. The question presented upon this appeal is whether the lien of a judgment against an alienor binds improvements made on the land by an alienee with constructive and actual notice of the judgment and a lis pendens to enforce it, against his grantor at the date of purchase.

From a decree of the circuit court of the city of Norfolk, holding both the lot and improvements liable, this appeal was granted.

In Fulkerson v. Taylor, 100 Va. 426, 437, 41 S. E. 863, 867, it is said: "Whether or not a judgment lien binds improvements in the hands of an alienee is a question of much interest and Importance, one which has not been directly passed upon by this court, and which we feel should not be decided, exceptafter full argument and careful consideration."

According to the experience of the writer on circuit, it was the established and unchallenged practice in such case to subject both land and Improvements to the lien of the judgment.

The appellant stands on the letter of the statute (Va. Code, 1904, § 3567) that "every judgment for money rendered in this State heretofore or hereafter against any person 6hall be a lien on all the real estate of or to which such person is or becomes possessed or entitled at or after the date of such judgment, " and the line of decisions which hold that the lien attaches to such interest only as the debtor actually has in the property at or after the date of the judgment.

But, as we shall see presently, property affected by the lien cannot be made to serve as a nucleus for the creation and building up of alleged after-acquired equities in behalf of subsequent purchasers with notice of the judgment. Such purchasers hold the property in subordination to the right of the creditor to subject it to his judgment in the condition in which he finds it at the time of such enforcement, without diminution or allowance for betterments placed upon it subsequent to the recovery and docketing of the judgment.

The right to allowance for improvements, under the Virginia statute, which is an innovation on the common law is confined to cases in which the improvement was made under a title believed to be good, and that is not predicable of a purchaser with notice of the incumbrance. Such purchaser has no higher right to protection with respect to money invested in improvements than to the original purchase price paid for the land. Indeed, in its last analysis, the entire contention of the appellant rests upon the fallacious proposition that an...