Leyden v. Citicorp Industrial Bank
762 P.2d 689 (Colo. 1988) (1989)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A court of equity may impose an equitable lien on a specific property to secure a debt obligation from a dissolution decree, even if the decree does not expressly provide for a security interest, when the lien is necessary to prevent unjust enrichment.
Facts:
- In 1980, a dissolution decree ordered Dawn Leyden to quitclaim her one-third interest in the marital residence to her ex-husband, Tommy Howe, and his mother, Lois Howe.
- In exchange, the decree required Tommy Howe to execute a $10,000 promissory note to Leyden, payable upon the occurrence of specific events, such as the sale of the property.
- Leyden quitclaimed her interest as ordered, Tommy Howe executed the note, and Leyden recorded the dissolution decree in the county where the property was located.
- Subsequently, Citicorp Industrial Bank extended a loan to the Howes, taking a deed of trust on the property as security, which was recorded in 1982.
- The Howes later filed for bankruptcy, and the debt owed to Leyden under the promissory note was discharged.
- The Howes disclaimed any interest in the property, and Citicorp foreclosed on it, later transferring it by deed to Pamela Sue Evans and Debra Lynn Evans.
Procedural Posture:
- Dawn Leyden filed a complaint in the District Court of Arapahoe County (trial court), seeking a declaratory judgment to impose an equitable lien on the property.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Leyden, declaring that an equitable lien existed and ordering a foreclosure sale.
- Citicorp and the Evanses, as appellants, appealed the trial court's decision to the Colorado Court of Appeals (intermediate appellate court).
- The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's judgment, holding that the dissolution decree did not create an equitable lien.
- Dawn Leyden, as petitioner, was granted certiorari by the Supreme Court of Colorado (highest state court) to review the decision of the Court of Appeals.
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 dissolution decree that orders one party to convey their interest in real property in exchange for an unsecured promissory note create an equitable lien on that property to prevent unjust enrichment, which is enforceable against subsequent purchasers with notice?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Erickson
Yes. A court of equity may impose an equitable lien on property out of general considerations of right and justice to prevent unjust enrichment. Here, the dissolution court tied the execution of the promissory note to Leyden's relinquishment of her interest in the specific property, and repayment was conditioned on events involving that property. If a lien were not imposed, Tommy Howe would be unjustly enriched, as he would have received Leyden's one-third share of the home for free after his debt was discharged in bankruptcy. Because the dissolution decree was recorded, subsequent purchasers like Citicorp and the Evanses had constructive notice of the facts giving rise to the lien and therefore took the property subject to it.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the power of equity courts to prevent unjust outcomes that may arise from the strict application of legal rules, particularly in the context of divorce and bankruptcy. It establishes that a party's interest in property from a dissolution decree can be protected via an equitable lien even without explicit security language in the decree itself. The case serves as a significant precedent, emphasizing that the substance of a judicial order and the goal of preventing unjust enrichment are paramount. It also reinforces the doctrine of constructive notice, placing a burden on lenders and purchasers to investigate court records in a property's chain of title that suggest a potential claim.
Unlock the full brief for Leyden v. Citicorp Industrial Bank