## Facts

- Kitty Ball obtained a money judgment against Mary Morgan in 1972 and recorded the judgment in the Mobile County probate court.
- Before recordation, Mary Morgan married and took the name Mary Collins, acquiring record title to certain Mobile County real property under “Mary Collins.”
- Ball recorded the judgment only under “Mary Morgan,” despite knowing of the name change.
- Mary Collins conveyed the property to Martin and Barbara Carrera, who later conveyed it to William and Rebecca Vogtner.
- The Vogtners’ attorney had previously heard socially that Ball “might have a judgment” against Mary Collins, but this was not part of the title search and was not communicated to the Vogtners.
- Ball sued to establish and enforce a judgment lien against the Vogtners’ property; the Vogtners asserted they were bona fide purchasers for value without notice because the recorded judgment was outside their chain of title.
- The Vogtners filed a third-party claim against Mississippi Valley Title Insurance Co. for defense and coverage under their title policy.
- The trial court ruled the Vogtners lacked actual or constructive notice and the judgment was not a lien against their property; it also held Mississippi Valley had a duty to defend and awarded $1,800 in attorney’s fees.
- Ball appealed the lien ruling; Mississippi Valley cross-appealed the duty-to-defend ruling.

## Issues

1. Whether a judgment recorded against a debtor under a former name creates a lien enforceable against later purchasers when record title to the property was held and conveyed under a different name, and whether the purchasers had actual or constructive notice.
2. Whether a title insurer must defend insured purchasers against a suit to impress a judgment lien where the claim potentially falls within policy coverage despite asserted exclusions.
3. Whether Ball stated a viable fraud claim absent a misrepresentation of material fact made to, and relied upon by, Ball.

## Decision

- The Alabama Supreme Court affirmed the decree for the Vogtners.
- The Court held the Vogtners had neither actual nor constructive notice of Ball’s judgment, and the judgment did not constitute a lien against their property.
- The Court held Mississippi Valley had a duty to defend the Vogtners and affirmed the award of $1,800 in attorney’s fees.
- The Court upheld dismissal of Ball’s fraud allegations for failure to allege actionable misrepresentation and reliance.

## Legal Principles

- Record notice generally depends on instruments appearing within a purchaser’s chain of title; a judgment recorded only under a materially different name from the record owner may fall outside the chain of title and fail to give constructive notice.
- A purchaser for value who lacks actual and constructive notice takes title free of an unrecorded or non-notice-giving encumbrance asserted by a judgment creditor.
- Vague, unverified information known only to counsel, not confirmed through the records and not communicated to the client, may be insufficient to establish actual notice to the purchaser.
- A title insurer’s duty to defend is triggered by claims that are potentially within policy coverage; wrongful refusal can require reimbursement of reasonable defense costs.
- Actionable fraud requires a misrepresentation of material fact made to the plaintiff, reliance by the plaintiff, and resulting detriment.

## Conclusion

Because Ball recorded her judgment only under “Mary Morgan,” purchasers taking title from “Mary Collins” were not charged with notice from the record, and the Vogtners qualified as bona fide purchasers without notice, defeating the asserted lien; Mississippi Valley was required to defend the Vogtners against the lien claim and reimburse their defense fees.


Ball v. Vogtner, 362 So. 2d 894 (Ala. 1978)