A TTORNEYS FOR A PPELLANT

Jeffrey C. Gerish Plunket t Cooney, P.C. Bloomfield Hills, Michigan
J. Dustin Smith Plunket t Cooney, P.C. Indianapolis, Indiana A TTORNEYS F OR A PPELLEE , C LAYBRIDGE H OMEOWNERS A SSOCIATION , I NC

. Whitney L. Mosby Karl L. Mulvaney Bingham Greenbaum Doll LLP Indianapolis, Indiana

____________________________________________________________________________ _____ _ 

# In the 

# Indiana Supreme Court

_________________________________ No

. 29S02

- 1504

- MF

- 188
JPM ORGAN C HASE B ANK , N.A. , Appellant (Intervenor) ,
V

. C LAYBRIDGE H OMEOWNERS A SSOCIATION , I NC

. , Appellee (Plaintiff),

V

. D EBORAH M. W ALTON , ET AL ., Appellees (Defendants)

.

_________________________________ Appeal from the Hamilton Superior Court , No

. 29D04

- 0801

- MF

- 31

The Honorable J. Richard Campbell, Judge

_________________________________ On Petition to Transfer from the In diana Court of Appeals, No. 29A02

- 1402

- MF

- 65

_________________________________

August 27, 2015 Rush, Chief Justice. Three years after a final judgment foreclosing Plaintiff’s judgment lien

— and six years after the suit began

— a successor m ortgagee moved to i ntervene to assert its interest in the foreclosed pro perty. We hold the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to intervene as untimely because Plaintiff ’s lis pendens notice , filed at the beginning of the suit , provided2

con structive notice of the suit

. That notice was valid because it was based on an enforceable , unrecorded judgment lien , and Plaintiff ’s action to foreclose its judgment lien was an in rem real estate action. We therefore affirm denial of the mortgagee ’s motion to intervene.

Facts and Procedural History
In December 2013 , JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A, filed a post

- judgment motion to intervene in this unusual and complicated foreclosure action 1 to protect its interest as assignee of a mortgage on the Carmel home (the “Real Estate”) of Deborah Walton and her mother, Margaret Walton

. 2 The trial court denied JPMorgan’s motion as untimely. Understanding why requires us to begin with the genesis of these proceedings that began nearly a decade earlier

. In 2004 , Claybridge Homeowner’s As sociation, Inc. obtained a personal judgment against Deborah Walton for interfer ing with a survey monument

— resulting in a monetary award, attorney’s fees and costs

— which the Court of Appeals affirmed on interlocutory appeal

. Walton v. Claybridge Homeowners Ass’n, Inc. , 825 N.E.2d 818, 826 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005). In January 2007 , after resolving counterclaims raised by Deborah, t he tria l court eventually certified this 2004 order as a final judg

ment. But significantly , the Hamilton County Clerk mistakenly failed to enter the 2004 order or 2007 final judgment o n the Judgment D ocket. All parties acknowledge and concede the Clerk’s oversight. On October 30, 2007, Claybridge filed to foreclose its judgment lien on the Real Estate

— naming both Deborah and Marg a ret as defendants along with several others

. 3 That same day, it

1 This is the fifth appeal involving these parties; the sixth if we include an appeal resulting from a dispute betwe en Margaret Walton and Claybridge ; and the seventh if we include a dispute between Deborah Walton and her title insurer. See JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., v. Claybridge Homeowners Ass’n, Inc. , 19 N.E.3d 324 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) , vacated ; Margaret Walton v. Cl aybridge Homeowners Ass’n, Inc. , No. 29A04

- 1402

- MF

- 87 , 2014 WL 5390367 (Ind. Ct. App. Oct. 22, 2014); Walton v. Claybridge Homeowners Ass’n, Inc. , No. 29A05

- 1006

- MF

- 399, 2011 WL 240179 (Ind. Ct. App. Jan. 20, 2011), trans. denied ; Walton v. Claybridge Homeowners Ass’n , Inc. , No. 29A04

- 0701

- CV

- 44, 2007 WL 3036933 (Ind. Ct. App. Oct. 19, 2007), trans. denied ; Walton v. First Am. Title Ins. Co. , 844 N.E.2d 143 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006), trans. denied ; Walton v. Claybridge Homeowners Ass’n , Inc. , 825 N.E.2d 818 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005); Walton v. Claybridge Homeowners Ass’n , Inc. , No. 29A04

- 0207

- CV

- 348 (Ind. Ct. App. July 15, 2003), trans. denied

. 2 We will refer to Deborah and Margaret collectively as “the Waltons,” and will use their first names when referring to them individually. 3 The full list of defendants named in the foreclosure complaint was Deborah M. Walton ; Margaret J. Walton; Fifth Third Mortgage Co. ; First Indiana Bank, N.A.; CitiBank (South Dakota), N.A.; American Express Co. ; Af fordable Home Renovat ions, Inc.; Fifth Third Bank; and Stewart Irwin, P.C. On Sep tem ber 21, 2009, the trial court entered a default judgment a gainst Fifth Third Mortgage Co.; Citibank (South Dakota), N.A.; American Express Co.; Af fordable Home Renovations, Inc.; Fifth Third Bank; and Stewart Irwin, P.C.3

also filed a lis pendens notice with the Hamilton County Clerk, giving notice of the judgment lien and pending foreclosure action. On May 19 , 2010, the trial court granted Claybridge ’s motion for summary judgment

— awarding “an in rem judgment

. . . in the principal sum of $64,848 .00 plus statutory interest from July 15, 2004” and taxes and other costs. It also foreclosed the judgment lien on the Real Estate , and the foreclosu re order was recorded on May 27, 2010. On appeal, the Waltons disputed whether Claybridge had a valid judgment lien to foreclose. But t he Court of Appeals affirmed , holding that the personal judgment against Deborah “was sufficient to permit the establishm ent of a ju dgment lien against ” her real estate that could be foreclosed as to Deborah

“ or any other party who had actual notice of the judgment against her.” Walton v. Claybridge Homeowners Ass’n, Inc. , No. 29A05

- 1006

- MF

- 399, 2011 WL 240179 , at *4 (Ind. Ct. App. Jan. 20, 2011), trans. denied

. With the foreclosure order in place , t he pr a ecipe for sheriff sale of the Real Estate was eventually filed on August 13, 2013

. Meanwhile , on November 1 3 , 2007

— two weeks after Claybridge filed the foreclosure and lis pendens notice

— the Waltons refinanced their home through a new $473,000 mortgage with Washington Mutual Bank (“WMB”)

. T he y used the proceeds of that mortgage to pay off their prior mortgage with Fifth Third M ortgage. During the refinancing process, WMB received a title commit ment on September 12, 2007 , about six weeks before Claybridge filed its suit

. Accordingly, t his title commitment did not reveal either the foreclosure or the lis pendens notice , nor did it show Cl aybridge’s 2007 judgment that was never docketed . WMB recorded its new mortgage on November 27, 2007 , and it was later assigned to JPMorgan. JPMorgan moved t o intervene as a matter of right on December 19, 2013 , after the pr a ecipe for sheriff sale was filed , asserting that it had no knowledge of the foreclosure when it assumed the WMB mortgage

. T he trial court denied JPMorgan’s motion , finding that “JPMorgan had notice of th[e] foreclosure action by virtue of the properly fil ed and valid Lis Pendens Notice” so that under Indiana Trial Rule 24, “JPMorgan’s request to intervene in this action six years after the filing of the Lis Pendens Notice is not timely .” The trial court also addressed the merits of JPMorgan’s motion to intervene . But all parties concede the timeliness issue was dispositive. JPMorgan appealed, and the Court of Appeals reversed. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., v. Claybridge Homeowners Ass’n , Inc. , 19 N.E.3d 324 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), vacated

. The Court of Appeals held that the trial court abused its discretion in denying JPMorgan’s motion as un timely be cause the lis pendens notice was invalid

. It reasoned that the lis pendens notice “ was in ef fective4

for the purpose of providing notice to JPMorgan ” because Claybridge’ s foreclosure action was enforcing a personal judgment against Deborah , not “a claim to title of real estate.” Id. at 336. W e granted Claybridge’s petition for transfer , thereby vacating the Court of Appeals decision. Ind. Appellate Rule 58(A).
Standard of Review
The dispositive issue is whether JPMorgan’s post

- judgment motion to intervene as a matter of right was timely

. We review the trial court’s denial of that motion for abuse of discretion, taking all the facts alleged in the motion as true. E. N. Mai sel & Assocs. v. Canden Corp. , 398 N.E.2d 1366, 1367 (Ind. Ct. App. 1980); Bryant v. Lake Cty. Trust Co. , 166 Ind. App. 92, 101, 334 N.E.2d 730, 735 (1975). “Because the concept of timeliness is flexible and its application depends upon the facts of each case, its determination must rest within the sound discretion of the trial court.” Bryant , 166 Ind. App. at 101, 334 N.E.2d at 735.

But JPMorgan’s intervention comes after the trial court entered the foreclosure order , which adds an other layer t o our standard of review. “ [P] ost

- judgment intervention is generally ‘dis favored’” and only appropriate “in certain ‘extraord inary and unusual circumstances. ’ ” Citimortgage, Inc. v. Barabas , 975 N.E.2d 805, 816 (Ind. 2012) (emphasis added) (quoting Bd. of Comm’rs of Benton Cty. v. Whistler , 455 N.E.2d 1149, 1153

– 54 (Ind. Ct. App. 1983) )

. Once the trial court enters a judgment , any attempt to intervene is effectively a motion to set aside that judgment under Trial Rule 60. See MDM Inv s. v. City of Carmel , 740 N.E.2d 929, 93 3 (“This court has indicated its preference to place substance over form [ when identifying a motion to set aside the judgment ].” ). That is precisely what JPMorgan did here by filing a “combined motion to intervene . . . [and] vacate the May 27, 2010 summary judgment and decree of foreclosure.” Our trial rules account for this scenario: “Intervention after trial or after judgment for purposes of a motion under Rules 50, 59, or 60, or an appeal may be allowed upon motion.” Ind. Trial R ule 24(C) (em phasis added)

. Ultimately, then, we must decide whether the trial court was within its discretion in assessing the circumstances leading up to JPMorgan’s intervention to determine that its post

- judgment intervention was un timely

. Disc ussion and Decision JPMorgan’s motion to intervene as a matter of right is governed by T.R. 24(A), which states that trial courts “shall” grant a motion to intervene “ when a statute confers an unconditional right to intervene ,” Trial R. 24(A)(1), or if the intervenor “shows (1) an interest in property which is the5

subject of the action, (2) that disposition of the action may practically impair that interest, and (3) that no existing party is adequately representi ng the moving party ’ s interest.” Citimortgage , 975 N.E.2d at 812 (citing Trial R. 24(A)(2)).
But intervention as a matter of right “shall” be granted only “[u]pon timely motion.” T.R

. 24(A) (emphasis added). And after entry of final judgment, our trial rules go a step further to state that intervention “ may be allowed” by the trial court

— the word “shall” no longer applies. See Trial R. 24(C) (emphasis added) . Timely intervention serves two goals: first, it prevents prejudice to the existing parties who have spent time a nd energy litigating a matter without regard to the intervenor’s interests. Citimortgage , 975 N.E.2d at 815

– 16. Second, it preserves the orderly process of the courts , a process that must be predictable, expedient, and economical. Id. Timeliness is primarily a shield that protects the existing parties and the courts , not a sword “to sanction would

- be intervenors who are tardy in making their application.’” Id. at 816 (quoting Bryant , 166 Ind. App. at 101, 334 N.E.2d at 735). Accordingly, JPMorgan be ars the burden of showing that the trial court abused its discretion in not finding extraordinary and u nu sual circumstances to justify its attempt to intervene three years after the fore closure order and six years after the filing of the suit

. See i d. We have found such cir

cum stances in past foreclosures when p laintiff s fail to provide intervenor s with notice of the suit. See i d. JPMorgan now argues that it similarly lacked notice , so that the trial court abused its dis

cretion in deny ing its motion

. But the trial court found, and Claybridge argues, that JPMorgan did have constructive notice

— the lis pendens notice Claybridge filed six years before , and on the same day as the foreclosure

. Thus, to resolve the issue of timeliness, we need to determine whether JPMorgan had con
structive notice of foreclosure by way of a valid lis pendens notice. W e agree with the trial court and Claybridge that the lis pendens notice was valid and gave constructive notice to the world because Claybridge ( 1) had an unrecorded judgment lien and ( 2) sought to enforce an in rem real estate interest. W e therefore affirm the trial court’s denial of JPMorgan’s motion to intervene

. I. The Lis Pendens Statute Allows Plaintiffs to Give Constructive Notice of Foreclos i ng an Unrecorded Real Estate Lien
. The doctrine of lis pendens is fundamentally about notice. The term lis pendens itself means “pending suit,” and it refers specifically to “the juris diction , power, or control which a court acquires6

over property” invol ved in a pending real estate action. Myers v. Leedy , 915 N.E.2d 133, 138 (Ind. 2009) ; 18 Ind. Law Encyclopedia Lis Pendens § 1 (2015). Any successor in interest to real estate is deemed to take notice of a pending action involving title to that real estate and is subject to its outcome. Mid

- West Fed. Sav. Bank v. Kerlin , 672 N.E.2d 82, 86

– 87 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996), trans. denied (citing Wilson v. Hefflin , 81 Ind. 35, 41

– 42 (1881)). The judgment in the pending lawsuit binds all successors in interest, regardless of whether a successor was a party to the liti gation. Id. The doctrine’s purpose is to protect the finality of court judgments by discourag ing purchases of contested real estate

. Id. ; 18 Ind. Law Encyclopedia Lis Pendens § 1.
At common law, n o separate lis pendens filing was necessary to give notice of the pending action because all people were presumed “ to be attentive to what passes in a court of justice.” Wilson , 81 Ind. at 41 (citing Worsley v. The Earl of Scarborough , (1746) 26 Eng. Rep. 1025 (Ch.) 1026 ; 3 Atk. 392 (Eng.) (“ [I] t is the pendency of the suit that creates the notice ; for as it is a transaction in a sovereign court of justice, it is supposed all people are attenti ve to what passes there. ”)). This com mon law rule still applies today when the claimant’s interest has been recorded. See Kerlin , 672 N.E.2d at 87 (citing I.C

. § 34

- 1

- 4

- 2 ( a )(3)(A), repealed and recodified at I.C. § 32

- 30

- 11

- 3(a) ). “I n these in

stances, the commencement of the foreclosure action itself provides constructive notice to pendent e lite claimants.” Id. (citing Rothschild v. Leonhard , 33 Ind. App. 452, 460, 71 N.E. 673, 676 (1904))

. But times have changed when it comes to unrecorded interests in real estate

. O ur General Assembly departed from the common law to require a separate lis pendens filing to enforce any unrecorded “lien upon, right to, or interest in any real estate

. ” The lis pendens statute states as follows:

This section applies to a person who commences a suit: (1) in any court of Indiana or in a district court of the United States sitting in Indiana; (2) by complaint as plaintiff or by cross

- complaint as defendant; and (3) to enforce any lien upon, right to, or interest in any real estate upon any claim not founded upon : (A) an instrument executed by the party having the legal title to the real estate, as appears from the proper records of the county, and recorded as required by law; or (B) a judgment of record in the co unty in which the real estate is located, against the party having the legal title to the real estate, as appears from the proper records.
I nd. C ode § 32

- 30

- 11

- 3 (a) (2008) (emphas e s added). This statute, therefore, controls our analysis7

today. Because it is in derogation of the common law, we strictly construe it

. Johnson v. Wysocki , 990 N.E.2d 456, 466 (Ind. 2013). But when any of its terms are unambiguous, we simply apply their plain and ordinary meaning. City of Carmel v. Steele , 865 N.E.2d 612 , 618 (In d. 2007).

All that parties need in order to file a lis pendens under the plain meaning of the statute is ( 1) an unrecorded lien, ( 2) upon real estate. The statute unambiguously applies to “ any lien upon . . . real estate ” that is “ not founded upon . . . a judgment of record in the county in which the real estate is located , ” I.C. § 32

- 30

- 11

- 3(a)(3)(B) (emphas e s added). In this way, filing the lis pendens notice “provide[s] machinery whereby a person with an in rem claim to property whi ch is not otherwise recorded or perfected may put his claim upon the public records, so that third persons dealing with the defendant . . . will have constructive notice of it.” Curry v. Orwig , 429 N.E.2d 268, 272

– 73 (Ind. Ct. App. 1981) (quoting 4 W. Harv ey and R. B. Townsend, Indiana Practice § 63.1 B at 340 (1971))

.
II. Claybridge Complied with the Lis Pendens Statute and Thereby Provided Constructive Notice of its Foreclosure Action
. JPMorgan contends that Claybridge ’s lis pendens notice is invalid and failed to give con

structive notice of its suit because Claybridge had no “ lien

. . . upon real estate” to en force

— but instead had only a personal judgment against Deborah

. Because the 2007 personal judgment against Deborah was never docketed, JPMorgan reasons that under the j udgment l ien s tatute, it never became enforceable as a lien against JPMorgan ’s interest in the Real Estate

. JPMorgan concede s that it would not have a case if the Clerk had recorded the judgment lien. But without an enforceable lien, it in sists that all Claybridge had was a personal judg ment , and not a real estate interest that justifies a lis pendens filing.

We disagree

. Although the 2007 personal judgment was un recorded, Claybridge had a n enforceab le judg ment lien on Deborah ’s property under longstanding precedent that a judgment always constitutes a lien “ [ a ] s between the im mediate parties to the judgment , ” Berry v. Reed , 73 Ind. 235, 239 (Ind. 1881)

— which the Court of Appeals recognized and properly applied in an earlier appeal. Walton , 2011 WL 240179, at * 4

. Indeed , the fact that the li e n is unrecorded is the very reason that the lis pendens statute applies

— since only liens “ not founded upon . . . a judgment of record” warrant a lis pen d ens filing. I.C. § 32

- 30

- 11

- 3(a)(3)(B) (emphasis added). Finally, Claybridge’s judgment lien was an in rem real estate interest

— entirely separate from its underlying personal judgment

— that served as a legitimate basis for filing the lis pendens notice. Th e valid lis8

pendens notice therefore gave JPMorgan constructive notice of the suit , and its motion to intervene six years later was untimely.
A. Claybridge Had a n Enforceable , Unrecorded Judgment Lien

. The lis pendens statute applies to “any lien, ” and h ere, Claybridge sought to enforce a judg

ment lien

. In most circumstances, a personal judgment do es not become a judgment lien until “the judgment is recorded in the judgment docket in the county where the realty held by the debtor is located , ” Arend v. Estler , 737 N.E.2d 1173, 1175 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000)

— the step the Clerk failed to take here

. The judgment lien statute says :

A ll final judgments for the recovery of money or costs

. . . constitute a lien upon real estate and chattels real liable to execution in the county where the judgment has been duly entered and indexed in the judgment docket as provided by law: (1) after the time the judgment was entered and indexed; and (2) until the expiration of ten (10) years after the rendition of the judgment; exclusive of any time during which the party was restrained from proceeding on the lien

. . . . I.C. § 34

- 55

- 9

- 2. The statute makes “all final judgments” a lien upon the judgment debto r’s “real estate and chattels real ” but only “ after the time the judgment [is] entered and indexed.” Id. ( e mphasis added)

. In other words, w ithout the recording, there is no lien.

But despite the judgment lien s tatute, w e have long held that a judgment (even a personal one) always constitutes a lien “ [ a ] s between the im mediate parties to the judgment, ” Berry , 73 Ind. at 239, and between p arties who hav e actual notice of the judgment , see Lobb v. Hudson

– Lobb , 913 N.E.2d 288 , 296 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). See also State Sav. Bank v. Shinn , 106 N.W. 921, 921 ( Iowa 1906) (citing cases from multiple jurisdictions for the proposition that “ it is generally held that failure to docket or index a judgment does not wholly destroy its effect as a lien ”). T he Court of Appeals applied this principl e as the law of the case in its 2011 decision when it held that the 2007 final judgment “ was sufficient to permit the establishment of a judicial lien against [Deborah’s] interest in any real property in Hamilton Co unty that could be foreclosed as to [Deborah] , or any other party who had actual notice of the judgment against her ,” Walton , 2011 WL 240179 at * 4

— a holding JPMorgan concedes is correct. Thus, even though the Clerk did not record Claybridge’s 2007 personal judgment against Deborah , it b ecame a n enforceable lien as between Claybridge and Deborah once it was handed down by the trial court.9

Ironically , if the Clerk had recorded the 2007 judgment, and Claybridge proceeded under the judgment l ien s tatu te, Claybridge would certainly have had no basis to file the lis pendens notice. The lis pendens statute permits filing only for unrecorded liens, not recorded ones . I.C. § 32

- 30

- 11

- 3(a)(3)(B) (liens “ not founded upon . . . a judgment of record” (emphasis added) ). T he very defect that JPMorgan believes disqualifies the lis pendens filing is the very characteristic that permits it. JPMorgan argues further that even if Claybridge had a valid judgment lien , that its lis pendens notice was inapplicable to JPMorgan because the underlying judgment lien was enforceable only as to Deborah and any other party to the 2007 Judgment. Essentially, JPMorgan asks us to hold that a lis pendens notice provides constructive notice of foreclosure only to those parties who are subject to the underlying judgment lien , not to all third parties

— and that otherwise , a lis pendens notice would transform an unrecorded judgment into a judgment lien as to all third parties in contra

vention of the judgment lien statute. We reject this argument for three reasons. First, it contravenes the plain meaning of the lis pendens statute , which unambiguously applies to “ any lien ” that is “ not founded upon . . . a judgment of record in the cou nty in which the real estate is located.” I.C. § 32

- 30

- 11

- 3(a)(3)(B) (emphasis added). This is precisely what Claybridge had

— a judgment lien that was founded upon the actual notice of the parties to the judgment rather than “a judgment of record.” Second, a lis pendens notice has always applied to ev eryone, including third parties. Our case law has con sis

tently held that filing a lis pendens notice provides constructive notice to all third persons with an interest in the property. Curry , 429 N.E.2d at 273 ; s ee also MDM Invs

. , 740 N.E.2d at 934 n.3 (citing cases). After all, even at common law, the fundamental purpose of lis pendens was to place the entire world on notice that a judgment in a pending real estate action suit will bind all parties with an int erest in that real estate. Wilson , 81 Ind. at 41. Finally, as a practical matter, n othing prevented JPMorgan from reading the lis pendens notice for itself during the six years leading up to its motion to intervene

. See I.C. § 32

- 30

- 11

- 6 (“Upon filing and recording the [lis pendens] notices described in this chapter, the clerk shall index the notices . . . .”). Thus, while we agree with JPMorgan that Claybridge had no judgment lien as to JPMorgan

— based on the judgment lien statute

— we find that Claybridge had a valid , unrecorded judgment lien as
to Deborah

. This is precisely what Claybridge needed to file a lis pendens notice . O nce that notice was filed and recorded , it gave constructive notice to the world

— including JPMorgan

.10

B. Claybridge’s Foreclosure Ac tion Was Not a Personal Claim but an In Rem Real Estate Claim to Enforce a Judgment Lie n . Because Claybridge had a n unrecorded judgment lien upon the Real Estate , it naturally follows that Claybridge’s foreclosure action enforced a “lien upon . . . real estate , ” not a personal judgment as JPMorgan contends

. JPMorgan correctly notes that the li s pendens notice has its limits: T he statute applies only to “in rem interests in real estate , ” and cannot be used to enforce a personal claim. Curry , 429 N.E.2d at 272 ; s ee also Nat’l City Bank, Indiana v. Shortridge , 689 N.E.2d 1248, 1253 (Ind. 1997) , supplemented by 691 N.E.2d 1210 (Ind. 1998). But Claybridge’s foreclosure action

— like all other foreclosures

— is an in rem interest in real estate, and therefore a prop er basis for a lis pendens filing.

In Curry , our Court of Appeals provided the framework for our analysis by recogniz ing a “spectrum” of claims that do ( or don’t ) permit a lis pendens filing

. 429 N.E.2d at 273. On one end of the spectrum are pure , in rem property interests, and on the other end , in personam interests: “[T]he clearest examples [] of a proper lis pendens notice occur in situations where the plaintiff is asserting a claim to the title of real estate under an unrecorded deed or attempti ng to foreclose an unrecorded mortgage.” Id. “ The opposite end of the spectrum is reached when a plaintiff files a lis pendens notice while asserting a personal claim against a defendant. ” Id. The Court of Appeals in Curry applied this spectrum to hold that a lis pendens notice filed to assert an interest in an ease

ment was on the side of the spectrum supporting a lis pendens filing. Id. By contrast, we held in Shortridge the use of lis pendens to “secure an interest in a pending personal injury lawsuit” was “plainly wrong.” 689 N.E.2d at 1253.
Here, Claybridge ’s basis for filing a lis pendens notice is even stronger than the basis in Curry

. Claybridge’s foreclosure action

— like any Indiana foreclosure action

— was an in rem, real estate claim suited to a lis pendens filing. And as we discussed earlier, th is foreclosure enforc es a valid judgment lien. Th e action is not like the personal injury claim we considered in Shortridge because Claybridg e is “asserting a claim to the title of real estate under an unrecorded” judgment lien

— quite similar to the “unrecorded deed” or the “unrecorded mortgage” that our Indiana Court of Appeals referenced in Curry , 429 N.E.2d at 273.

The personal nature of th e 2007 judgment underlying Claybridge’s judgment lien does not

move the foreclosure action to the opposite end of the Curry spectrum

. It is well

- settled that a lien11

is a claim “on another’s property” to secure a debt, Terpstra v. Farmers & Merchs. Bank , 483 N.E.2d 749, 755 (Ind. Ct. App. 1985), and that all actions to enforce liens are in rem, not in personam, Dowden v. State , 6 N.E. 136, 137 (1886) (holding “ [ t ] he action is to enforce the lien simply, and is therefore, properly speaking an action in re m”). JPMorgan disregards this principle and instead asks us to look behind the judgment lien to the personal judgment that preceded it. But the two are not the same. Once a judgment becomes a judgment lien

— whether by the Clerk recording it on the judgment docket or by the non

- prevailing party taking actual notice of the judgment, as in this case

— it transforms from a court order into a n in rem, real estate interest. That’s what happened here, giving Claybridge a legitimate basis to file its lis pendens notice. And once the notice was filed, JPMorgan had all it needed to intervene in the foreclosure in a timely fashion.

Conclusion
T he trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying JPMorgan’s post

- judgment motion to intervene as untimely because Claybridge’s lis pendens notice gave JPMorgan constructive notice of the foreclosure . The lis pendens notice was valid because it was fi led to enforce a valid , unrecorded judgment lien as to Deborah

— regardless of whether th e lien applied to JPMorgan. Moreover, Claybridge’s foreclosure action was an in rem, real estate action, not a personal action that would otherwise disqualify the lis pendens filing. W e affirm the trial court’s denial of JPMorgan’s motion to intervene.
Dickson, Rucker, David, and Massa, JJ., concur.