## Facts

- Jennie E. Page sold and conveyed Tract 1756 in Orange County to B. E. Doyle and Mollie Doyle without receiving the full purchase price and without taking or recording any deed of trust or other security.
- After acquiring the tract, the Doyles subdivided it, sold some lots, and built houses on others, including Lots 7, 8, and 9.
- On October 8, 1954, the Doyles owed Buena Park Lumber Company $9,215 on an open account for lumber and building materials (some used on the tract).
- On October 8, 1954, the Doyles executed a $9,215 promissory note to Buena Park secured by a deed of trust on Lots 7, 8, and 9; the deed of trust was recorded that same day and was accepted as payment of the open account.
- At the time Buena Park took and recorded its deed of trust, it had no actual or constructive notice that Page had not been paid in full or that she claimed any lien on the property.
- On January 12, 1955, Transcontinental Credit Service obtained a money judgment against the Doyles; an abstract of judgment was recorded January 17, 1955, creating a judgment lien.
- On February 11, 1955, Bert J. Schut and Winifred Schut entered into written escrow instructions to buy Lots 7 and 8 from the Doyles for $4,800; they likewise had no notice that Page remained unpaid.
- Page later died. Her estate (through its executors) obtained a judgment establishing an equitable vendor’s lien against the property for the unpaid portion of the original purchase price.
- The Schuts filed an action to quiet title to determine the priority of interests among Buena Park, Transcontinental, the Schuts, and Page’s estate as to Lots 7 and 8.
- The trial court fixed priority as: (1) Buena Park’s deed of trust, (2) Transcontinental’s judgment lien, (3) the Schuts’ interest, and (4) Page’s estate’s vendor’s lien, and ruled that the first three were not subject to the vendor’s lien.
- The executors of Page’s estate appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether Page’s estate’s unrecorded equitable vendor’s lien for unpaid purchase money had priority over, or could bind, Buena Park’s deed of trust, Transcontinental’s judgment lien, and the Schuts’ rights under their purchase contract when those interests were taken for value without notice of the unpaid purchase price.
2. Whether the Schuts’ purchase contract gave them an express lien or protectable interest (including under Civil Code section 3046) that ranked ahead of the estate’s later-asserted vendor’s lien.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment.
- The court held the Page estate’s vendor’s lien was subordinate to Buena Park’s deed of trust, Transcontinental’s judgment lien, and the Schuts’ interest because those parties acquired their rights for value and without actual or constructive notice of the unpaid purchase price or any vendor’s lien claim.
- The court approved the trial court’s priority order: (1) Buena Park, (2) Transcontinental, (3) the Schuts, (4) Page’s estate.
- The court recognized that the Schuts, as vendees under the contract, held an express lien on the land to secure repayment of amounts due to them under the transaction (Civ. Code, § 3046), which was not displaced by the estate’s unrecorded vendor’s lien.

## Legal Principles

- A vendor’s lien for unpaid purchase money is an equitable lien that may arise when the seller conveys title without taking an express security instrument.
- An unrecorded equitable vendor’s lien is ineffective against later purchasers or encumbrancers who take for value without actual or constructive notice of the unpaid purchase price or the lien.
- California recording and notice rules protect good-faith reliance on the public record against “secret” equitable claims.
- A judgment lien is created and perfected by recording an abstract of judgment and generally ranks by time against later interests, subject to recording and notice rules.
- A vendee under a contract to purchase land may hold an express lien recognized by statute (including Civ. Code, § 3046) to secure amounts due under the purchase arrangement, and that interest can outrank a later-asserted equitable vendor’s lien as against parties without notice.

## Conclusion

Schut v. Doyle holds that Page’s estate could not use an unrecorded equitable vendor’s lien to cut ahead of Buena Park’s recorded deed of trust, Transcontinental’s recorded judgment lien, or the Schuts’ contract-based rights where each took for value without notice of the unpaid purchase price; the estate’s vendor’s lien was therefore last in priority and enforceable only subject to the superior interests.


Schut v. Doyle, 168 Cal. App. 2d 698 (1959)