Utah Supreme Court

What makes a valid judgment lien in Utah real property? Irving Place Associates v. 628 Park Ave., LLC Explained

2015 UT 91
No. 20130937
November 13, 2015
Reversed

Summary

628 Park Avenue recorded a nonfinal default judgment against James Ring to create a judgment lien on real property Ring later conveyed to Irving Place Associates. The Utah Supreme Court held that the recorded judgment failed to create a valid lien because it was nonfinal and contained insufficient identifying information about the judgment debtor.

Analysis

The Utah Supreme Court’s decision in Irving Place Associates v. 628 Park Ave., LLC clarifies critical requirements for creating valid judgment liens on real property under Utah Code section 78B-5-202(7). The case provides essential guidance for practitioners seeking to establish or challenge property liens.

Background and Facts

628 Park Avenue obtained a default judgment against James Ring for $150,144 while claims against other defendants remained pending. The judgment was not certified as final under Rule 54(b). One week after entry, 628 Park Avenue recorded the judgment in Summit County, identifying Ring only by name. Ring subsequently conveyed the property to Irving Place Associates, who challenged the purported lien when 628 Park Avenue later sought to execute against the property.

Key Legal Issues

The court addressed two critical questions: (1) whether a nonfinal judgment qualifies as a “judgment” capable of sustaining a statutory lien, and (2) whether identifying the judgment debtor solely by name satisfies the statutory information requirements for creating a valid lien.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Supreme Court reversed, finding the term “judgment” in the lien statute ambiguous but concluding from statutory context that only final judgments qualify. The court noted that section 78B-5-202(1)’s eight-year limitations period begins running only upon final judgment, and section 78B-5-202(5)’s appeal provision applies only to final, appealable orders. Additionally, the court held that “the information identifying the judgment debtor” requires more than just the debtor’s name—it must include the specific identifying information detailed in Utah Code section 78B-5-201(4)(b), including correct name, last-known address, service address, and if known, social security number, date of birth, and driver’s license number.

Practice Implications

This decision establishes clear requirements for valid judgment liens. Practitioners must ensure judgments are final before attempting to create liens and must include comprehensive debtor identification beyond merely the debtor’s name. The ruling protects subsequent bona fide purchasers by requiring complete and final judgments for lien creation, while providing clear guidance for judgment creditors seeking to secure their interests in real property.

Original Opinion

Link to Original Case

Case Details

Case Name

Irving Place Associates v. 628 Park Ave., LLC

Citation

2015 UT 91

Court

Utah Supreme Court

Case Number

No. 20130937

Date Decided

November 13, 2015

Outcome

Reversed

Holding

A judgment lien under Utah Code section 78B-5-202(7) requires both a final judgment and sufficient identifying information about the judgment debtor beyond merely the debtor’s name.

Standard of Review

Questions of statutory interpretation are reviewed for correctness, affording no deference to the district court’s legal conclusions

Practice Tip

When creating judgment liens, ensure the judgment is final under Rule 54(b) and includes all required identifying information about the debtor as specified in Utah Code section 78B-5-201(4)(b), including correct name, last-known address, service address, and if known, social security number, date of birth, and driver’s license number.

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 Court of Appeals

    In re A.W.

    November 23, 2018

    A juvenile court may terminate parental rights based on sexual abuse constituting prima facie evidence of unfitness, even where reunification services were provided, when the parent failed to complete court-ordered therapy specifically addressing the sexual abuse.
    • DCFS and Child Welfare
    • |
    • Due Process
    • |
    • Preservation of Error
    • |
    • Termination of Parental Rights
    Read More
    • Utah Supreme Court

    Aquagen International v. Calrae Trust

    September 4, 1998

    A contract is unenforceable for failure of consideration when one party fails to perform its sole contractual obligation, and the non-breaching party may cease performance without breaching any anti-claim provision that merely prohibits affirmative lawsuits.
    • Contract Interpretation
    • |
    • Injunctions and Equitable Relief
    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.