Opinion ID: 1874042
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: did the lower court err in imposing an equitable lien in the sum of twenty-five thousand dollars, ($25,000.00), in favor of the appellee, christine s. light, against the appellant, david edward dudley, and impressing the equitable lien on the homestead owned jointly by the appellant, david edward dudley, and appellee, crystal light dudley.

Text: David Dudley argues on appeal that the lower court committed error by relying on Neyland v. Neyland, 482 So.2d 228 (Miss. 1986) to impress an equitable lien in favor of Christine Light. In Neyland v. Neyland , parents loaned their son and daughter-in-law $22,000.00 for the construction of a home. When the son and wife began divorce proceedings, the parents brought an action to impress an equitable lien upon the house built by the couple. In ruling that the parents were entitled to an equitable lien, this Court, citing Branca v. Branca, 443 A.2d 929 (Del. 1982), stated as follows: (1) While in the usual case an equitable lien is impressed to reflect an express agreement that the property to be liened was intended to be held as security for the obligation of the promisor, Acacia Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. Newcomb, Del. Ch., 21 A.2d 723 (1941), a lien may also be impressed out of recognition of general principles of right and justice, Acacia v. Newcomb, supra; accord, Tucker v. Prevatt Builders, Inc., Fla.Ct.App., 116 So.2d 437 (1959); Sentel v. James, Ill. Ct.App., 16 Ill. App.2d 373, 148 N.E.2d 22 (1958); Fulp v. Fulp, N.C.Supr., 264 N.C. 20, 140 S.E.2d 708 (1965). (2) A principal reason for impressing an equitable lien is to prevent unjust enrichment, i.e., where it would be contrary to equity and good conscience for an individual to retain a property interest acquired at the expense of another. Sherman v. Rhode Island Hospital Trust Co., R.I.Supr., 68 R.I. 525, 30 A.2d 498 (1943); Glen Falls Indemity Co. v. Golden, D.D.C., 148 F. Supp. 41 (1957). Section 161 of the Restatement of Restitution states that where property of one person can by a proceeding in equity by reached by another as security for a claim on the ground that otherwise the former would be unjustly enriched, an equitable lien arises. Neyland, 482 So.2d at 230. The chancellor determined that the money was loaned to Crystal and David Dudley to save their home rather than as an investment in Circle C. The evidence established that Christine Light gave David and Crystal Dudley $51,500.00 on a Friday. On the following Monday, David Dudley paid $52,000.00 to reduce the mortgage against their home. This fact supports the theory that the money was loaned to retire the home mortgage. It appears that unjust enrichment would result if David and Crystal Dudley were permitted to divorce and partition the debt-free family residence. The chancellor determined that an equitable lien was necessary to protect Christine Light's interest in the subject property. We agree and affirm the holding of the chancellor.