Opinion ID: 1094461
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: was it error to place a lien upon mr. alexander's land?

Text: As to the $4,000.00 plus interest which was not owed, the chancellor was in error. Billy Alexander argues that he had no notice that a lien might be placed upon his land and further, that Patricia Alexander did not ask for such a lien. In this position he relies upon our decision in Duncan v. Duncan, 417 So.2d 908 (Miss. 1982), which held that the appellee was bound by her pleadings and the chancellor had no authority to award appellee a greater amount than that prayed for in her petition. The evidence showed that Billy Alexander was indebted to the tune of approximately $510,000.00. The chancellor recognized this indebtedness both in finding Billy Alexander was unable to make the annual payments on his debt to his former wife and as his reason for securing the balance due upon that debt to the former wife by imposing the lien on the property to Billy Alexander. By virtue of the fact that Mrs. Alexander sued for a judgment on that indebtedness there was sufficient notice to Mr. Alexander that the possibility of the attachment of the lien existed and a full hearing was had on that issue. Furthermore, the debt secured amounts to a purchase money lien for the purchase money for the very land itself. We, therefore, find that Billy Alexander was deprived of no constitutional rights by the impression of the lien upon his property to secure the balance due to his wife by purchasing her interest in the property. Morgan v. Morgan, 397 So.2d 894 (Miss. 1981). If the impressment of this lien unduly restricts Mr. Alexander's farming operation, he may either discharge it by payment of the balance due to his wife, or he may secure the payments by some other method acceptable to the chancery court. The chancellor was therefore not in error to impress the lien on the Alexander property to secure payment of the remaining purchase price of that property to Mrs. Alexander.