Davidson v. Redstone Federal Credit Union (In Re Davidson)

442 B.R. 830, 2010 Bankr. LEXIS 4560
CourtUnited States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Alabama
DecidedDecember 22, 2010
Docket19-80331
StatusPublished

This text of 442 B.R. 830 (Davidson v. Redstone Federal Credit Union (In Re Davidson)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Davidson v. Redstone Federal Credit Union (In Re Davidson), 442 B.R. 830, 2010 Bankr. LEXIS 4560 (Ala. 2010).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OPINION

JACK CADDELL, Bankruptcy Judge.

This case is before the Court on the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment. Both parties filed excellent briefs and after consideration of same, the Court finds that Redstone’s judgment lien recorded on February 2, 2004 is primed by Regions Bank’s second mortgage lien recorded on June 14, 2002 despite the typographical error contained in the mortgage. As explained in the case of Aucoin v. Aucoin, 727 So.2d 824 (Ala.Civ.App.1998), a mortgage or deed that does not express the true intentions of the parties may be reformed under Ala.Code § 35-4-153 (1975) on the basis of mutual mistake to the extent same “can be done without prejudice to rights acquired by third persons in good faith and for value.” While reformation may not be allowed under § 35-4-153 to the extent same prejudices the rights of a bona fide purchaser for value, reformation is allowed against those claiming under the original parties in privity such as judgment creditors like Redstone. Aucoin v. Aucoin, 727 So.2d at 826; See also Beasley v. Mellon Fin. Servs. Corp., 569 So.2d 389 (Ala.1990); and Bailey, Davis & Co. v. Timberlake, 74 Ala. 221 (Ala.1883) (explaining that judgment creditors are not protected from the reformation statute).

As Redstone is not a bona fide purchaser, Regions’ second mortgage is subjection to reformation under Ala.Code § 35-4-153 (1975) and primes Redstone’s judgment lien. Based upon the foregoing, the § 522(f)(2)(A) calculation for determining the amount of non-exempt equity to which Redstone’s judgment lien attaches must include Regions’ second mortgage as follows, the parties having agreed to value:

Agreed value of home $135,000.00
Regions’ first mortgage lien -$106,343.82
Regions’ second mortgage lien -$ 11,853.65
Homestead exemption -$ 5,000.00
Total non-exempt equity: $ 11,802.53

As the amount of the § 522(f)(2)(A) calculation exceeds the value of the debtor’s interest in the property absent any liens by $6,035.09, Redstone’s judgment lien in the amount of $17,837.62 is hereby reduced to $11,802.53 with interest to be paid at the plan rate of 5.25% with the balance of the claim to be allowed as an unsecured claim.

A separate order will be entered consistent with the opinion.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Beasley v. Mellon Financial Services Corp.
569 So. 2d 389 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1990)
Aucoin v. Aucoin
727 So. 2d 824 (Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama, 1998)
Bailey, Davis & Co. v. Timberlake
74 Ala. 221 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1883)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
442 B.R. 830, 2010 Bankr. LEXIS 4560, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/davidson-v-redstone-federal-credit-union-in-re-davidson-alnb-2010.