Opinion ID: 1129462
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: failure of trial court to require husband's judgment lien to bear interest.

Text: Husband alleges error on the part of the trial court in its failure to direct that husband's lien awarded on the home of the parties shall bear interest from the date of the judgment until its payment. Husband points out that the lien could remain unenforceable for as long as seven years (until wife is 65 years of age) without yielding any return upon his frozen equity in the home. The lien thus impressed is in the nature of an equitable lien, the terms of which are not governed by contract or statute, but instead are based upon equitable considerations. In Sims v. Sims, [8] (696) we said: As stated in the case of Hanscom v. Hanscom, supra, (6 Colo. App. 97, 39 P. 885) a court of equity, independent of statute, has jurisdiction to award alimony; and it must necessarily follow that such a court can enforce its orders by impressing its judgment as a lien upon realty owned by the defendant, if in its opinion it is in the furtherance of what is fair and just. And we further said: In an equitable action the findings of the trial court should be sustained, unless it appears his findings are clearly against the weight of the evidence; and the findings of the trial court should be strongly persuasive, and should not be set aside unless the Supreme Court can say, in equity and good conscience, that the conclusion reached by the trial court is clearly against the weight of the evidence. In Benson v. Benson, [9] we held (Syllabus 2 by the Court): In the absence of an express contract, an equitable lien, based upon those maxims which lie at the foundation of equity jurisprudence, may arise by implication out of general considerations of right and justice, where as applied to the relations of the parties and the circumstances of their dealings, there is some obligation or duty to be enforced. The nature of an equitable lien is further illuminated in the case of Hill v. Hill [10] by the following: It is said of an equitable lien that it is not a right of property in the subject matter of the lien nor a right of action therefor, nor does it depend upon possession; but is merely a right to have the property subjected to the payment of a debt or claim, ... . A judgment is the final determination of the rights of the parties to an action. [11] Husband's lien upon the home of the parties was a part of the judgment rendered by the trial court. Husband cites Laws, 1979 Ch. 60 § 1 (Amended, 12 O.S. 1981 § 727) in effect at the time of rendition of the judgment, which provides in pertinent part: All judgments of courts of record ... shall bear interest at the rate of twelve percent (12%) per year, ... from date of rendition. Husband urges that the statute mandates the imposition of interest upon the judgment lien. We disagree. The issue thus presented is not whether a judgment is statutorially required to bear interest; but rather, whether the trial court's determination of a condition in the equitable lien (that it not bear interest) is clearly against the weight of the evidence, as measured by equity and good conscience. We cannot speculate, on appeal, as to the equitable considerations which might have prompted the trial court to specify that the lien not bear interest, and the record before us is devoid of what consideration of the relation of the parties and their circumstances impelled the trial court to direct the non-interest bearing aspect of that portion of the judgment. We therefore hold that the equitable lien as imposed upon the home of the parties as a part of the trial court's judgment is not contrary to the weight of the evidence or contrary to equity and good conscience; and the same is affirmed. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Chief Justice Don Barnes and Justices Pat Irwin, John B. Doolin, Marian Opala, and Alma Wilson certified their disqualification in this cause. Honorable Clifford Hopper, Honorable W.O. Green, III, Honorable Jane Wiseman, Honorable Robert A. Layden, and Honorable Tony Graham were appointed Special Justices to serve in their stead. SIMMS, V.C.J., HARGRAVE, J., and HOPPER, GREEN and LAYDEN, Special Justices, concur.