Joondeph v. Hicks
Colorado Supreme Court
235 P.3d 303 (2010)
Facts
When Kent and Jennifer Londre bought their residence, the senior lienholder released its lien and Donald P. Hicks (plaintiff) believed his junior lien on the property moved into primary position. Hicks sued the Londres to clarify title and foreclose on their property. The court in that case held that, because the Londres had no prior knowledge of Hicks's lien, they were equitably subrogated and their interest in the property moved into the top spot once held by the former senior lienholder. Hicks remained the junior lienholder. The Londres subsequently sold their property to Shirley S. and Brian C. Joondeph (defendants), who were fully aware of Hicks's lien. The Londres gave the Joondephs a deed that excepted Hicks's lien from the warranties of title. Once again, Hicks sued to clarify title and foreclose on his lien, thereby commencing the present case. This time, the trial court ruled that the Londres conveyed their senior lien to the Joondephs and that, under the doctrine of derivative equitable subrogation, the Joondephs took over the Londres' status as equitable subrogees whose interest in the property took priority over Hicks's lien. Hicks appealed, and the appellate court reversed the trial court's ruling. The Joondephs appealed to the Colorado Supreme Court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Eid, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 705,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 44,400 briefs, keyed to 983 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
