midpage

Moore v. . JonesMoore v. . Jones

Supreme Court of North Carolina
Feb 27, 1946
Reporters:
, ,
Before:
Barnhill
Barnhill, J.

When a debtor dies his real estate descends to his heirs or vests in his devisees, and possession of his personal estate vests in his executor or administrator. The personalty is primarily liable for the payment of his debts, including judgments and obligations secured by mortgages for,- though sеcured, they are nonetheless debts, and heirs and devisees arе entitled to have them paid out of the personal estate to the exoneration of the security. Guilford County v. Estates Administration, Inc., 213 N. C., 763, 197 S. E., 535; Linker v. Linker, 213 N. C., 351, 196 S. E., 329; Price v. Askins, 212 N. C., 583, 194 S. E., 284; Lee v. Eure, 82 N. C., 428.

The real estate is secondarily liable and may be resorted to only in the event the personal estate is insufficient to pay all debts ‍​​​​‌‌​​​​‌​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​​‌‌​​​‌​‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌​​​‌​​‌‌‍in full. Even then it must be converted into cash — personalty—under order of court and in the mаnner provided by statute.

So then it clearly appears that G. S., 28-105, providing the order in which debts are to be paid _ by an administrator or еxecutor, relates exclusively to the application of personal property, the only estate with which the administratоr has any right to deal.

When the administrator seeks an order for the sаle of real property to make assets and thus to have it сonverted into personalty so that he may apply it to the payment of debts, ‍​​​​‌‌​​​​‌​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​​‌‌​​​‌​‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌​​​‌​​‌‌‍he takes the land in the condition his decedent lеft it. His petition to sell is a petition to convert and he can сlaim no more than she owned at the time of her- death. Guilford County v. Estates Administration, Inc., supra. That is to sаy, when the land is sold to make assets the proceeds remain real estate until all liens are discharged and are to be applied to the payment of such liens in the order of their priority. Only the residue, if any, is payable to the administrator as personal рroperty to be distributed in the order provided by statute. Murchison v. Williams, 71 N. C., 135.

Any other cоnclusion would run counter to reason and conflict with other provisions of our laws. The owner ‍​​​​‌‌​​​​‌​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​​‌‌​​​‌​‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌​​​‌​​‌‌‍of a docketed judgment has a lien on all the real estate of his debtor within his county. G. S., 1-234. Helsabeck v. Vass, 196 N. C., 603, 146 S. E., 576; Jackson v. Thompson, *152 214 N. C., 539, 200 S. E., 16. This lien has priority oyer a subsequently recorded mortgage. Duplin County v. Harrell, 195 N. C., 445, 142 S. E., 481.

A docketed judgment fixes the liеn ‍​​​​‌‌​​​​‌​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​​‌‌​​​‌​‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌​​​‌​​‌‌‍and the debtor cannot escape it. Moore v. Jordan, 117 N. C., 86. Manifestly the Legislature did not intend that the death of the debtor should strike down this lien, destroy the right tо priority of payment out of the land assured by statute, and reduce the claim to the status of an unsecured debt. Guilford County v. Estates Administration, Inc., supra.

A judgment creditor may nоt issue execution for the enforcement of his lien after the dеath of the judgment debtor. This avenue ‍​​​​‌‌​​​​‌​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​​‌‌​​​‌​‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌​​​‌​​‌‌‍of relief is closed and he is required to look to the personal representative whosе duty it is to administer the whole estate. Sawyers v. Sawyers, 93 N. C., 321; Williams v. Weaver, 94 N. C., 134; Tuck v. Walker, 106 N. C., 285; Flynn v. Rumley, 212 N. C., 25, 192 S. E., 868; Anno. 114 A. L. R., 1165. But this does not mean that when the personal representative finds it necessary to seek а conversion of the land to make assets either he or the сourt may disregard the rights of lienors.

A judgment is not a lien upon personal property prior to levy. Hardware Co. v. Jones, 222 N. C., 530, 23 S. E. (2d), 883. Hence the Legislature was at liberty to make provision for the order of its payment out of personal property without doing violence to any existing right of the сreditor. However, we find nothing in this statute, G. S., 28-105, or in any other provision of the law, that indicates an intent to nullify the lien of a docketed judgment or to destroy any right acquired under the law prior to the death of thе judgment debtor.

It follows that there was error in the judgment below. As the amоunt due on the judgment is less than the net sale price of the land it must be paid in full before any part of such proceeds is applied to the satisfaction of the mortgage or to the payment of other debts.

Reversed.

Case Details

Case Name: Moore v. . Jones
Court Name: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Date Published: Feb 27, 1946
Citations: 226 N.C. 149; 36 S.E.2d 920; 1946 N.C. LEXIS 399
Court Abbreviation: N.C.
Log In