Lexplug logoLexplug

ATS, Inc. v. James Curtis Kent et al.

Court of Appeals of Tennessee, at Jackson
27 S.W.3d 923 (1998)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A properly recorded judgment lien attaches to a debtor's real property and is not defeated by a subsequent sale of that property; therefore, it has priority over a purchase money mortgage taken by the new buyer.


Facts:

  • On October 10, 1995, ATS, Inc. (ATS) obtained a money judgment for $175,000 against Keith M. Canfield (Canfield).
  • On November 17, 1995, ATS recorded the judgment in Shelby County, Tennessee, which created a judgment lien on a piece of real property owned by Canfield.
  • At the time, the property was also encumbered by a prior deed of trust in favor of United American Bank of Memphis.
  • On January 5, 1996, Canfield sold the encumbered property to James Curtis Kent (Kent).
  • As part of the same transaction, Kent executed a purchase money deed of trust (mortgage) in favor of Union Planters National Bank (Union Planters) to finance the purchase.
  • Proceeds from the sale to Kent were used to satisfy the debt owed to United American Bank, and its pre-existing deed of trust was released.
  • Kent's deed and Union Planters' deed of trust were recorded on January 8, 1996.

Procedural Posture:

  • ATS, Inc. filed a complaint in the trial court against James Curtis Kent and Union Planters National Bank.
  • The complaint sought to enforce ATS's judgment lien by forcing a sale of the real property owned by Kent.
  • The trial court denied ATS's request to order a sale of the property.
  • The trial court instead awarded a money judgment of $15,674.75 to ATS, representing the amount the original debtor received from the sale after prior debts were paid.
  • ATS, as the appellant, appealed the trial court's judgment to the Court of Appeals of Tennessee.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a pre-existing, properly recorded judgment lien against a seller of real property have priority over a purchase money mortgage executed by the buyer in the subsequent sale transaction?


Opinions:

Majority - Farmer, J.

Yes, a pre-existing, properly recorded judgment lien against a seller has priority over a subsequent purchase money mortgage. The court reasoned that under Tennessee statute, ATS's judgment lien attached to Canfield's property on November 17, 1995, when it was recorded. The subsequent sale to Kent and the creation of Union Planters' mortgage did not destroy this pre-existing lien. The court distinguished this case from precedent like Guffey v. Creutzinger, where a purchase money mortgage was given priority. In Guffey, the judgment debtor was the purchaser of new property, and the mortgage attached simultaneously with the acquisition of title, preventing the judgment lien from ever attaching to an unencumbered interest. Here, the judgment debtor was the seller (Canfield), and the lien was already attached to the property before the sale transaction. Therefore, the buyer (Kent) and his lender (Union Planters) took the property subject to ATS's senior lien. The court also held that ATS has a vested statutory right to enforce its lien by forcing a sale of the property, and this right cannot be supplanted by equitable remedies, even if ATS benefits from the satisfaction of prior liens.



Analysis:

This decision clarifies the limits of the special priority afforded to purchase money mortgages in Tennessee. It establishes that the doctrine's protection applies when the judgment debtor is the buyer of property but not when the debtor is the seller of property already encumbered by a recorded judgment lien. The case reinforces the fundamental 'first in time, first in right' principle of recording statutes and underscores the critical importance of a thorough title search for subsequent purchasers and lenders. The court's refusal to apply an equitable remedy in place of a vested statutory right also demonstrates a strict adherence to legal formalities, even when the outcome benefits a party that may seem unjustly enriched at the expense of a party who failed to discover a recorded encumbrance.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: ATS, Inc. v. James Curtis Kent et al. (1998)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"