## Facts

- George and Lila Barker sold real property to Diane Hodge under a recorded uniform real estate contract (executory land sale contract).
- Donald and Ruth Clement later obtained and docketed a money judgment against the Barkers.
- Hodge paid off the remaining contract balance; the Barkers deeded the property to Hodge at a closing.
- At the same closing, Hodge deeded the property to Raymond and Debra Cannefax; the Cannefaxes recorded their deed the next day.
- A post-closing title search revealed the Clements’ docketed judgment against the Barkers.
- The Clements later sought to execute on the property to satisfy their judgment.
- The Cannefaxes sued to quiet title, asserting the judgment lien never attached to the property.

## Issues

1. Whether, under Utah Code Ann. § 78-22-1, a docketed judgment against a vendor under an executory land sale contract becomes a lien on the vendor’s remaining interest in the land.
2. Whether the doctrine of equitable conversion renders the vendor’s interest personal property (a right to payment) rather than “real property” subject to a judgment lien.

## Decision

- The Utah Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals and rejected the trial court’s view that the judgment lien attached to the vendor’s contract interest.
- The court held that a judgment against a land-contract vendor does not create a lien against the vendor’s interest for purposes of § 78-22-1.
- Title was quieted in the Cannefaxes free of the Clements’ claimed judgment lien.

## Legal Principles

- Under equitable conversion, once a binding executory contract for the sale of land exists, the vendee is treated as the equitable owner of the land.
- The vendor’s remaining interest is generally personal property: the right to receive the purchase price, with legal title retained primarily as security.
- A judgment lien under Utah Code Ann. § 78-22-1 attaches only to the “real property of the judgment debtor”; bare legal title held as security under a land sale contract is not “real property” for lien attachment purposes.
- Judgment creditors seeking to reach a vendor’s contract rights must use remedies applicable to personal property interests (e.g., garnishment of payments or proceeds), rather than execution on the land itself.

## Conclusion

The court applied equitable conversion to classify a land-contract vendor’s interest as personalty, concluding that Utah’s judgment-lien statute does not allow a docketed judgment against the vendor to attach to the land, and therefore the purchaser’s title was not encumbered by the vendor’s judgment creditor.


Cannefax v. Clement, 818 P.2d 546 (Utah 1991)