Court Opinion

ID: 9597805
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 01:02:58.555451+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:27:09.347852
License: Public Domain

URBIGKIT, Justice,
specially concurring.
Although I concur with the decision of the majority on the basis presented by the litigants, this decision does not predetermine for me whether the same conclusion would result if a notice document had been recorded and that different status developed for appeal. Cf. Willmschen v. Meeker, 750 P.2d 669 (Wyo.1988), where the notice document was recorded. See Low v. Sanger, 478 P.2d 60 (Wyo.1970).1
The recognized purpose of the recorded document is to protect the installment contract buyers from loss of their purchase equity, Dame v. Mileski, 80 Wyo. 156, 340 P.2d 205 (1959), by evisceration from tax or judgment liens assessed against or a bona fide purchaser from the contract vendor as the recorded owner. See recording effect, Condos v. Trapp, 739 P.2d 749 (Wyo.1987); Crozier v. Malone, 366 P.2d 125 (Wyo.1961); and Torgeson v. Connelly, 348 P.2d 63 (Wyo.1959). Unquestionably, a different character of protected interest is created for the purchaser by the recorded notice of sale. See W.S. 34-1-121 and 34-1-122. Cf. Low, 478 P.2d 60. With rec-ordation of a properly executed document, a judgment against the vendor can no longer over-lien the buyer’s purchase interest. Consequently, with that changed status, it does not necessarily follow that this different character of recorded property interest is not also differently impacted by a judgment lien impressed on the buyer.
In this case, it is unnecessary to make that judgment since the subject is not presented here by the record or briefs as a stated basis for reversal. Consequently, we are left with that issue for another day in other cases.
Consequently, I specially concur in the opinion and decision of the majority.

. It is a general Wyoming real estate practice to either record a notice document or a copy of the installment contract itself.