NO. 91-394 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

1992 

IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF KENNETH JONES, Petitioner, 

and 

RITA ANN "GOBERT" JONES, Respondent, 

-vsSTEVEN G. POINDEXTER and INSURED TITLES, INC., 

a Montana corporation, 

Appellants. 

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, 

In and for the County of Missoula, 

The Honorable John S. Henson, Judge presiding. 

COUNSEL OF RECORD: 

For Appellant: 

John K. Tabaracci; Sullivan and Tabaracci, Missou 

Montana 

For Respondent: 

Paul Neal Cooley; - Skelton and Cooley, Missoula, 

Montana 

enneth Jones, Pro Se, Kamia, Idaho 

.JUd - 9 199 Submitted: April 21, 1992 
Chief Justice J. A. Turnage delivered the Opinion of the Court. 

Steven Poindexter and Insured Titles, Inc., appeal an order of 

the District Court for the Fourth Judicial District, Missoula 

County, allowing Rita Ann ggGobertgg Jones to execute judgment liens 

on certain real property in Florence, Montana. The property was 

sold to Poindexter by Kenneth Jones, Rita's former husband, and his 

second wife and their daughters. We reverse. 

We restate the issue as whether the order entered by the 

District Court relates to property sold to Poindexter by Ken Jones 

and is based on judgment liens existing when Poindexter purchased 

the property. 

Since the marriage of Rita and Ken Jones was dissolved in 

January 1985, Ken has been held in contempt of court several times 

for refusing to pay maintenance and child support. He unsuccessfully challenged the original property settlement. In re Marriage 

of Jones (1987), 229 Mont. 128, 745 P.2d 350. 

Ken purchased real property located in Florence, Montana, in 

1986. In May 1987, he executed a declaration of homestead on the 

property pursuant to g 70-32-105, MCA. In July 1987, he conveyed 

the property by quitclaim deed to himself (1/2), his second wife 

(1/6), and their two daughters (1/6 each), as tenants in common. 

His second wife filed a declaration of homestead in January 1988. 

Also in 1988, Ken filed for bankruptcy. As a result of that 

filing, in July 1988 a dissolution decree property settlement 
provision that he pay certain suns to Rita was redesignated as a 

maintenance obligation. Ken unsuccessfully appealed a subsequent 

order that he pay Rita maintenance and back child support. In re 

Marriage of Jones (lggO), 242 Mont. 119, 788 P.2d 1351. While that 

appeal was pending, on January 5, 1990, Ken and his second wife 

(acting for herself and as guardian for their daughters) conveyed 

their Florence, Montana property to Poindexter. Insured Titles 

acted as the title company. 

Rita states that she did not know of the sale of the Florence, 

Montana property until after it occurred. She was able to execute 

upon $15,735.53, or half, of the proceeds of the sale, which 

Insured Titles withheld from Ken for the purpose of paying Rita's 

past-due maintenance and child support. Execution on those 

proceeds is not a subject of this appeal. This left $2,113.53 due 

on the underlying judgment. 

On July 11, 1990, Rita moved for an order of sale of the 

Florence, Montana property so that she could recover the maintenance remaining due her on the judgments upon which the earlier 

execution was had and attorney fees she was awarded under a January 

24, 1989 order. The District Court ordered Poindexter and Insured 

Titles to show cause why Rita should not be allowed to execute upon 

the property. 

After a hearing, the court determined that Ken's homestead 

exemption was abandoned when he sold his interest in the property 
to Poindexter. It reasoned that because Rita's judgment liens had 

never been removed or extinguished, those liens attached and 

encumbered the property at the time the homestead exemption was 

abandoned and thus the property was conveyed to Poindexter subject 

to the liens and to the court's execution order. In June 1991, the 

court ordered that Rita may execute on the property in the amount 

of $8,749.02 plus interest. This included $2,113.53 remaining due 

from the earlier execution, plus interest on that amount; maintenance from May to September 1990 plus interest (those past-due 

payments having been reduced to a judgment in October 1990 

past-due maintenance from October 1990 to May 1991. The 

stated that the attorney fees awarded under the January 24 

order had not attached to the property. 

) ; and 

court 

, 1989 

Rita has already executed on Ken's half of the proceeds of the 

sale of the Florence property. Prior to the entry of any of the 

judgments upon which execution is sought, Ken conveyed a total of 

half of his interest in that property to his second wife and two 

daughters. As indicated in the order from which appeal is taken, 

Poindexter purchased the property from the four tenants in common. 

Absent a setting aside of the conveyances from Ken to his second 

wife and daughters, we conclude that judgment liens against Ken's 

property would not support an execution against the interests of 

the second wife and daughters and therefore do not support 
execution against the interest Poindexter purchased fromthe second 

wife and daughters. 

There is another problem with allowing sale of the property 

for execution on the District Court judgments for maintenance due 

from May to September 1990 and from October 1990 to May 1991. 

Those maintenance payments became due and judgments were entered 

after Ken sold the real property in Florence to Poindexter. Under 

5 70-21-306, MCA, a purchaser takes property subject to prior 

judgments filed and recorded as provided in 5 7-4-2613, MCA. 

However, no authority has been cited that a purchaser takes 

property subject to subsequent judgments against the seller. We 

conclude that execution may not be had upon the Florence property 

for judgments entered against Ken after Poindexter purchased the 

property. 

Because of our resolution of this restated issue, we do not 

reach the other issues raised. 

Reversed. 
We concur: