Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

defendanttrialwilldocket

Related Cases

Jones v. Hill, 267 Va. 708, 594 S.E.2d 913

Facts

Thomas N. Jones died in 1993, leaving a life estate to his wife, Annie K. Jones, and a vested remainder to his children, including Vaiden Jones. Vaiden Jones died in 2000, and his widow, Virginia Jones, was the sole beneficiary of his will. After Annie Jones's death in 2001, the property was sold, but Tammie L. Hill, who had a judgment lien against Vaiden Jones, sought to enforce her lien against the sale proceeds.

Tammie L. Hill (“Hill”) had previously obtained a judgment against Vaiden Jones and had previously docketed the judgment in the Circuit Court of Brunswick County. The lien, docketed on August 29, 2000, was in the amount of $10,000 with eight percent interest from April 23, 1993 and costs.

Issue

Whether a lien may attach to the vested interest of a remainderman who takes from a life tenant with full power to dispose of the entire corpus of the estate, and whether a creditor may enforce the lien after the death of the life tenant when the remainderman predeceases the life tenant.

Rule

A judgment lien attaches to all real estate of the defendant from the time it is recorded, and a vested remainder interest is subject to a creditor's claims.

Code § 8.01–458 provides that: Every judgment for money rendered in this Commonwealth by any state or federal court or by confession of judgment, as provided by law, shall be a lien on all the real estate of or to which the defendant in the judgment is or becomes possessed or entitled, from the time such judgment is recorded on the judgment lien docket of the clerk's office of the county or city where such land is situated.

Analysis

The court determined that Vaiden Jones's interest in the property was a vested remainder subject to divestment, which means that the lien attached to his interest when it was docketed. Since Annie Jones did not dispose of the property during her lifetime, Vaiden Jones's interest remained intact, allowing Hill to enforce her lien against the proceeds from the sale.

Consequently, Hill had a lien on Vaiden Jones's remainder interest in the parcel when her judgment was docketed.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's decision, ruling that Hill's lien was valid and entitled her to the proceeds from the sale of the property.

Accordingly, we will affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Who won?

Tammie L. Hill prevailed in the case because the court found that her lien attached to Vaiden Jones's vested interest in the property, which was not divested before his death.

The trial court held 'that the interest of R. Vaiden Jones, in the real property of which Thomas N. Jones died seized, was a vested interest against which the judgment lien of Tammie Hill attached and accordingly Tammie L. Hill is entitled to the funds in dispute.'

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Barnes v. Marshall, 467 S.W.2d 70

Kirkpatrick Estate v. Hennings, 524 N.W.2d 440

In re Binge’s Estate, 5 Wash.2d 446, 105 P.2d 689

Britt v. Upchurch, 327 N.C. 454, 396 S.E.2d 318

Humphreys v. Humphreys, 364 S.W.2d 177