Lewis v. Debord and Nelson-Debord
335 P.3d 1136
Ariz. Ct. App.2014Background
- In 2003 the Lewises obtained a money judgment against Karen MacKean and Fred Foust, and recorded that judgment in Pima County in January 2006, renewing it in June 2008.
- Arizona law (amended in 1996) requires that judgments recorded on/after Jan 1, 1997 be accompanied by a separate information statement (A.R.S. § 33-967(A)); the Lewises did not record an information statement until August 2013.
- MacKean conveyed the subject Pima County real property to Sonomex, LLC; the Debords purchased the property from Sonomex in July 2012.
- The Lewises sued to foreclose their judgment lien on the property in August 2012; the Debords moved for summary judgment arguing the Lewises’ failure to record the required information statement rendered the lien unenforceable against the Debords.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for the Debords; the Lewises appealed. The appellate court reviewed statutory interpretation and summary-judgment issues de novo.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does failure to attach the § 33-967(A) information statement invalidate a recorded judgment lien against subsequent purchasers? | Lewises: Failure to attach affects only lien priority, not validity; subsequent purchasers stand in judgment debtor’s shoes and take subject to the lien. | Debords: Lack of the information statement renders the lien unenforceable against purchasers who acquire property before compliance. | Held: Recording under § 33-961 creates a valid lien, but failure to attach the information statement under § 33-967(A) causes the lien to lose priority as to interests acquired by third parties before compliance; Lewises could not execute on the Debords’ property. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rowe v. Schultz, 131 Ariz. 536 (App. 1982) (judgment liens are creatures of statute)
- Sysco Arizona, Inc. v. Hoskins, 235 Ariz. 164 (App. 2014) (strict statutory compliance for judgment-lien statutes)
- Byers v. Wik, 169 Ariz. 215 (App. 1991) (recorded judgment permits execution on real property owned or later acquired)
- Freeman v. Wintroath Pumps—Div. of Worthington Corp., 13 Ariz. App. 182 (App. 1970) (judgment debtor retains power to sell property; purchaser with notice takes subject to lien)
- City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc., 218 Ariz. 172 (App. 2008) (apply plain statutory language when unambiguous)
- Bonito Partners, LLC v. City of Flagstaff, 229 Ariz. 75 (App. 2012) (related statutes construed together)
- Southern Union Gas Co. v. Department of Revenue, 119 Ariz. 512 (1978) (mandatory vs. directory statutory language analysis)
- Sourcecorp, Inc. v. Norcutt (Sourcecorp II), 227 Ariz. 463 (App. 2011) (discussed but not controlling for the precise issue here)