Caseflicks

Supreme Court of Colorado • 1989

Leyden v. Citicorp Industrial Bank

782 P.2d 6 | 13 Brief Times Rptr. 1300 | 1989 Colo. LEXIS 313

Full access

Unlock the video and quiz

The written brief is free to read below. Subscribe to watch the video explainer and take the quiz.

Create an account Log in

Takeaway

In short, this case holds that a divorce-related promise to pay for a former spouse's surrendered interest in identified real property may be secured by an equitable lien when necessary to prevent unjust enrichment, and that lien binds later purchasers or lenders with notice.

Background

Dawn Leyden and Tommy Howe divorced in 1980. Their dissolution decree found that Leyden owned a one-third interest in the marital residence, valued at $10,000. The decree required Leyden to quitclaim that interest to Howe and his mother, Lois Howe. At the same time, Howe had to execute a $10,000 promissory note to Leyden, payable upon the first of several events, including the death of either owner, their ceasing to occupy the house, a sale of the property, or August 20, 1990. Leyden conveyed her interest, Howe signed the note, and Leyden recorded the dissolution decree in Arapahoe County, where the property was located.

Citicorp later loaned money to the Howes and took a recorded deed of trust on the property. After the Howes filed bankruptcy and Howe's personal obligation on Leyden's note was discharged, Citicorp foreclosed and obtained title. During Leyden's declaratory-judgment action asserting a lien, Citicorp conveyed the property to Pamela and Debra Evans.

The district court granted Leyden summary judgment. It held that the dissolution decree and surrounding circumstances created an equitable lien securing the unpaid note, that Citicorp and the Evanses had notice of the lien-producing facts, and that the lien could be foreclosed. The court of appeals reversed, reasoning that the dissolution court had not expressly required a security instrument or payment from sale proceeds and therefore had not intended to create a lien. The Colorado Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals.

Issues

Issue #1

Whether the dissolution decree and the circumstances of the property division gave Leyden an equitable lien on the marital residence.

Holding

Yes. Equity required a lien on the residence to secure Leyden's $10,000 property-division claim.

Reasoning

In Colorado, an equitable lien may arise from a written agreement intended to charge particular property or, independently, from equitable considerations of right and justice. The latter form is designed to prevent unjust enrichment by giving the claimant a right to have identified property applied to a particular debt.

The court of appeals treated the dissolution court's intent to create a security interest as dispositive. The supreme court held that intent was relevant but not exclusive. A court considering an equitable lien must also assess the parties' relationship, the transaction's connection to specific property, the inadequacy of ordinary legal remedies, and whether denying relief would unjustly enrich one party.

Howe received Leyden's one-third interest in the home in exchange for the note, but paid Leyden nothing. He later benefited from borrowing against the property and discharged his personal obligation to Leyden in bankruptcy. Without a lien, he would retain the benefit of Leyden's conveyed interest without paying its court-determined value.

The note was closely tied to the particular residence. Leyden's conveyance and Howe's execution of the note were contemporaneous, and several events making the note due—sale of the property or cessation of occupancy—directly concerned the residence. Those facts supported treating the property as security for the obligation, even though the decree did not expressly order a deed of trust.

The equitable lien arose from the facts existing when the dissolution decree was entered in 1980. Thus, whether the district court technically created the lien or declared one already existing was immaterial; its attachment related back to the decree and depended on whether later transferees had notice of the underlying facts.

Issue #2

Whether Leyden's equitable lien was enforceable against Citicorp and the Evanses, who later acquired interests in the property.

Holding

Yes. Citicorp and the Evanses took with constructive notice of the facts giving rise to Leyden's equitable lien and therefore were not protected as bona fide purchasers.

Reasoning

An equitable lien is enforceable against a transferee who has knowledge or notice of the facts giving rise to the lien, or who does not give value. It is cut off only when property reaches a bona fide purchaser without notice. Notice includes constructive notice: knowledge of facts that would lead a reasonably intelligent and diligent person to investigate further.

When Citicorp made its loan and recorded its deed of trust, the dissolution decree had already been recorded in the property's chain of title. Citicorp did not contend that it lacked actual knowledge of the decree's contents. The recorded decree therefore gave at least constructive notice of the transaction through which Leyden relinquished her ownership interest in return for Howe's promise to pay.

When the Evanses received the property from Citicorp, the recorded dissolution decree remained in the chain of title. They also took after Leyden filed a lis pendens identifying this action, which directly asserted an equitable lien. Those recorded instruments would have led a reasonable purchaser to investigate Leyden's claim.

Recognizing the lien did not undermine Colorado's recording system. Colorado law expressly gives effect to constructive notice, and Citicorp and the Evanses had notice of the facts that made the property equitably chargeable with Leyden's claim.

Issue #3

Whether the district court could order foreclosure of the equitable lien and award attorney fees.

Holding

The foreclosure order was proper; the attorney-fee question was remanded for consideration by the court of appeals.

Reasoning

An equitable lien is a security interest in specific property and may be enforced through foreclosure, with the property's sale proceeds applied to the secured debt. Because the respondents' challenge to foreclosure depended entirely on their argument that no equitable lien existed, the district court properly ordered foreclosure once the lien was established.

The supreme court could not resolve attorney fees because the court of appeals had not reached that issue and the parties had neither briefed nor argued it before the supreme court. The case was remanded to the court of appeals to address fees before further proceedings in the district court.