Court Opinion

ID: 9706872
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 01:53:58.829276+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:25.555916
License: Public Domain

*1205SULLIVAN, Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I agree with the majority's resolution of Issue I.
However, I respectfully dissent from that portion of the majority opinion which holds that Cosby obtained title to the real estate in question free and clear from Blak-ley's judgment lien.
Blakley's judgment against Clyde was recorded on June 10, 1987. Record at 822. At that time there was a balance due on the contract between Cosby and Clyde in the amount of $5,896.67. I read Rural Acceptance Corporation v. Pierce (1973) 1st Dist., 157 Ind.App. 90, 298 N.E.2d 499, to hold that liens against real estate are valid against a contract purchaser to the extent of the unpaid contract balance at the time the lien attaches.
In this regard, I believe the majority reads the Rural Acceptance decision wrongly. In that case the vendee was making the installment contract payments directly to a prior lienholder, a mortgagee. At the time of trial, the vendee owed a balance of $5,201.34. The balance due upon the mortgage was $2,721.23. The trial court awarded this sum to the mortgagee. A judgment creditor prior in time to the lien of Rural Acceptance was awarded the full balance due upon the judgment, $1,000. Although, Rural's judgment lien balance was $8,212.44 plus interest and attorney fees it could recover only the $1,480.11 representing the remaining liability of the vendee upon the real estate contract.
In the instant case, we are unaware of any other holders of liens prior in time to that of Blakley Corporation. For this reason, the basis for distribution of the contract balance among the various lienholders in Rural is not here applicable. The underlying rationale of the Rural decision is however applicable.
I would affirm the judgment as to the amount of damages awarded but would remand with instructions for the trial court to fix and determine the portion of the damage award payable to Blakley not to exceed $5,896.67.