Utah Court of Appeals

Must judgment creditors file in both the county recorder and Registry of Judgments to create property liens? Kitches & Zorn v. Kim Explained

2005 UT App 164
No. 20040526-CA
April 7, 2005
Reversed

Summary

Kitches & Zorn obtained a judgment against Yong Woo Kim and recorded an abstract with the Davis County Recorder before Kim deeded property to his wife. The trial court quashed their writ of execution, ruling that Utah Code section 78-22-1.5 required both recording with the county recorder and filing in the Registry of Judgments to create a valid lien.

Analysis

In Kitches & Zorn v. Kim, the Utah Court of Appeals resolved a critical question about judgment lien creation that had significant implications for creditors’ rights and real property transfers.

Background and Facts

Kitches & Zorn obtained a $38,095 judgment against Yong Woo Kim in Salt Lake County. To secure a lien on Kim’s Davis County property, they recorded an abstract of judgment with the Davis County Recorder on May 9, 2003. Three days later, Kim deeded the property to his wife. When Kitches & Zorn sought to execute on the property, Kim objected, arguing they lacked a valid lien because they had not filed the judgment in the Registry of Judgments at the Davis County District Court until July 29, 2003—after his conveyance to his wife.

Key Legal Issues

The central issue was whether Utah Code section 78-22-1.5 requires both (1) recording with the county recorder and (2) filing in the Registry of Judgments to create a valid judgment lien, or whether recording alone suffices. This interpretation would determine whether Kitches & Zorn’s lien predated Kim’s conveyance.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that statutory interpretation requires reading subsections (2) and (3) of section 78-22-1.5 independently, not conjunctively. The court emphasized that section 78-22-1(7) states a judgment “becomes a lien upon real property” if recorded with the county recorder. Critically, sections 78-22-1.5(4) and (6) use “or” rather than “and” when referencing the two filing methods, indicating they are alternative rather than cumulative requirements.

Practice Implications

This decision provides important clarity for judgment enforcement practitioners. Creditors can establish valid liens by recording with the county recorder alone, without the additional step of Registry of Judgments filing. This streamlined process enables faster lien creation and better protection against subsequent conveyances. However, practitioners should note that while Registry filing isn’t required for lien creation, it remains necessary for certain enforcement procedures under Rule 69.

Original Opinion

Link to Original Case

Case Details

Case Name

Kitches & Zorn v. Kim

Citation

2005 UT App 164

Court

Utah Court of Appeals

Case Number

No. 20040526-CA

Date Decided

April 7, 2005

Outcome

Reversed

Holding

A judgment creditor need only record a judgment or abstract of judgment with the county recorder to create a valid lien on real property, without also filing in the Registry of Judgments.

Standard of Review

Correctness for questions of statutory interpretation, affording no deference to the district court’s legal conclusions

Practice Tip

Record judgment abstracts with the county recorder immediately after obtaining judgment to secure priority over subsequent conveyances, as Registry of Judgments filing is not required for lien creation.

Need Appellate Counsel?

Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

Related Court Opinions

    • Utah Supreme Court

    State v. Whittle

    October 8, 1999

    A petit jury verdict of guilt moots a challenge to a grand jury indictment based on prosecutorial misconduct.
    • Appellate Procedure
    • |
    • Constitutional Rights (Criminal)
    • |
    • Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
    • |
    • Preservation of Error
    Read More
    • Utah Supreme Court

    In re Young

    August 27, 1999

    A judge who engages in ex parte communications with an attorney about a pending proceeding violates the Code of Judicial Conduct and may be publicly reprimanded for conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.
    • Appellate Procedure
    • |
    • Constitutional Rights (Criminal)
    • |
    • Standard of Review
    Read More
About these Decision Summaries

Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.