Waicker v. Banegura

• Decision Date: 09 February 2000
• Docket Number: No. 48,48
• Citation: 357 Md. 450,745 A.2d 419
• Parties: Gary W. WAICKER et al. v. Fabio K. BANEGURA et al.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

745 A.2d 419

357 Md. 450

Gary W. WAICKER et al. v. Fabio K. BANEGURA et al.

No. 48, Sept. Term, 1999.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

February 9, 2000.

Donald P. Mazor, Baltimore, for appellants.

Edward J. Gilliss (Edward U. Lee, III, Royston, Mueller, McLean & Reid, LLP, on brief), Towson, for appellees.

Argued before BELL, C.J., and ELDRIDGE, RODOWSKY, RAKER, WILNER, CATHELL and HARRELL, JJ CATHELL, Judge.

Gary W. Waicker and Diane L. Waicker, appellants, appeal from a judgment of the Circuit Court for Baltimore County, in favor of Mystic Investments, Inc. (Mystic or Mystic Investments), appellee, finding that Mystic's lien had priority over a misindexed lien of appellants.¹ Appellants present one issue: "Whether the judgment held by appellants Gary and Diane Waicker has priority over the judgments to which appellee Mystic Investments, Inc., have been subrogated." We respond to appellants' issue in the negative, and accordingly affirm the circuit court.

I. Facts

On or about April 28, 1993, appellants, Gary W. Waicker and Diane L. Waicker, sought to have a deficiency judgment they held from the Circuit Court for Baltimore City against appellees Fabio K. Banegura and Olive K. Banegura, as husband and wife, recorded in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County. When the Waickers' judgment was indexed and recorded by the Clerk of the Baltimore County Circuit Court, it was misindexed under the name Banegu na rather than Banegura. The Baltimore County Notice of Recordation, dated April 28, 1993, was mailed to appellants and showed that the judgment had been indexed improperly.²

This cause of action arose when appellants sought to enforce their judgment against the property, then owned by Fabio K. Banegura, known as 6612 Loch Raven Boulevard, Baltimore County, Maryland, the property encumbered by Mystic's Deed of Trust lien.³ At the time the Waicker judgment was recorded (and misindexed) in Baltimore County, there was a preexisting deed of trust lien on the property in the principal amount of $52,699.01. This mortgage had been previously granted by both Mr. and Mrs. Banegura. Additionally, there were three judgment liens recorded in Baltimore County against Fabio Banegura, individually, that predated recordation of appellants' judgment in Baltimore County. As of September, 1997, these judgments and their payoff balances were: (1) the Taylor judgment, dated May 14, 1985, in the sum of $3,600.00; (2) the Household Bank judgment, dated April 21, 1986, in the sum of $4,000.00; and (3) the O'Connor, Piper and Flynn judgment, dated November 21, 1986, in the sum of $700.00. Because these three judgments were against Fabio Banegura individually, they were not liens against the property owned by Fabio and Olive Banegura as tenants by the entirety.

On or about September 25, 1997, the Baneguras refinanced their property through Mystic Investments. As part of this planned refinancing, the Baneguras transferred the property to Fabio Banegura, individually, to be deeded immediately by deed of trust to Mystic.⁴ During the process leading up to this simultaneous transaction, Mystic Investments conducted a search for judgments entered against Fabio and Olive Banegura in Baltimore County. Because it had been indexed improperly and recorded under the name Baneguna, appellants' judgment was not discovered during Mystic Investments' search. The Refinance Deed of Trust was in the principal sum of $92,000.00, of which $64,533.87 was used to satisfy the original mortgage lien on the property, and an additional $8,300.00 was used to satisfy the three aforementioned judgments.

Believing that their judgment was superior to Mystic Investments' Deed of Trust, appellants sought to enforce their judgment by execution and judicial sale of the property. Upon learning of appellants' enforcement action against the property, Mystic Investments filed a Motion to Stay Proceeding and/or Release of Property From Levy pursuant to Maryland Rule 2-643(e). In its motion, Mystic asked the circuit court to enter an order declaring that it had a priority lien on the property to the extent of the prior first mortgage and the three additional judgments under the doctrine of equitable subrogation. Mystic Investments further alleged that it was entitled to a priority lien because the Waicker judgment had been misindexed.⁵

At the hearing on September 11, 1998, appellants argued that, even assuming arguendo that equitable subrogation applied, their judgment lien was senior to the judgments paid by Mystic Investments because only their judgment was against the Baneguras jointly and had attached when the Baneguras owned the property as tenants by the entirety. Mystic argued, in relevant part:⁶

THE COURT: In this case, you are suggesting there wasn't even negligence, because the judgment was not indexed correctly, so even—

MR. GILLISS [Mystic's attorney]: Exactly.

THE COURT: —so even exercising due diligence, your client could not have found it.

MR. GILLISS: That is correct.

But even if there was negligence, it doesn't make a difference.

And later, Mystic argued:

I think that the facts, themselves, call out for the court to accept that Mystic had no actual knowledge of that Waicker lien, because if they had, they would have paid it off, as they paid off the others, and there has been an explanation as to why it [the lien] wasn't discovered[, i.e., the misindexing].

The Circuit Court for Baltimore County issued an order on September 28, 1998, granting Mystic Investments' motion and giving Mystic a priority interest in the property. In its ruling, the trial court stated, in part:

The fourth consideration concerns the lack of responsibility of Mystic to search the land records. Mystic did do a title search as indicated by the inclusion of a search report by Chicago Title Insurance Company dated 9/19/97. The reason the Waicker judgment was not found by its search is because the judgment was incorrectly filed under the name Baneguna, not Banegura. Given that Mystic did perform an adequate title search that did not find the misfiled judgment, Mystic cannot be said to have failed in its responsibility to search the land records.

Appellants submitted a Motion to Alter, Amend and/or Revise the Judgment, which was denied.

Appellants do not dispute that Mystic Investments is entitled to equitable subrogation to the extent of the deed of trust lien and the three judgments it paid off as part of the refinancing. The issue before the Court is whether the Circuit Court for Baltimore County erred in holding that Mystic Investments' Deed of Trust lien has priority over appellants' judgment lien because appellants' judgment was misindexed under the name Baneguna rather than the name of the title owners as reflected in the land records of Baltimore County—Banegura—and therefore never attached to the property in Baltimore County titled in the land records to the Baneguras.

We hold that generally, absent evidence of actual knowledge, when a judgment is indexed and recorded under a name different than the name of the title holder as reflected in the land records,⁷ it fails to become a lien against that real property in respect to subsequent lien-holders or purchasers without actual knowledge. Notice will be found for judgments, which are indexed under incorrect or misspelled names only when the facts and circumstances are such that a party has actual knowledge that the judgment has been indexed under an incorrect or misspelled name or has actual knowledge that the debtor used or was known under the misnomer. The Circuit Court for Baltimore County correctly ruled that Mystic Investments had a priority interest over appellants because appellants' judgment was indexed improperly under the surname ⁸ Baneguna rather than Banegura and because they failed to present any evidence that Mystic actually knew the judgment was indexed under any name other than Banegura.

II. Analysis and Discussion

The fundamental purpose of this present action is to determine the priority of judgment liens against a particular piece of real estate. Maryland Code (1974, 1998 Repl.Vol.), § 11-402(c) of the Courts & Judicial Proceedings Article is critical in making this determination:

(c) Judgment of another court.—If indexed and recorded as prescribed by the Maryland Rules, a money judgment constitutes a lien on the judgment debtor's interest in land located in a county other than the county in which the judgment was originally entered, except a lease from year to year or for a term not more than five years and not renewable. [Emphasis added.]

The relevant provisions of the Maryland Rules are Rules 2-621(b) and 2-623(a). They state, respectively:

(b) Other counties. Except as otherwise provided by law, a money judgment that is recorded and indexed pursuant to Rule 2-623(a) constitutes a lien from the date of recording in the amount of the judgment and post-judgment interest on the defendant's interest in land located in the county of recording.

Md. Rule 2-621(b).

(a) Judgment of another court. Upon receiving a copy of a judgment of another court, certified or authenticated in accordance with these rules or statutes of this State, or of the United States, the clerk shall record and index the judgment if it was entered by ... (c) another circuit court of this State....

Md. Rule 2-623(a).⁹ The primary goal of section 11-402(c), and Maryland Rules 2-621(b) and 2-623(a) is to provide clear-cut rules for the indexing and recording of judgment liens. Although appellants had a deficiency judgment in Baltimore City against the Baneguras (or Banegunas),¹⁰ it would not constitute a lien against real property titled to the Baneguras among the land records in Baltimore County unless filed and correctly indexed in Baltimore County. Such a requirement is not new in Maryland. "[A] judgment is not a lien on land in another county until a certified copy of the docket entries in the case taken from the court...