NationStar Mortg. LLC v. Curry , 262 N.C. App. 218 ( 2018 )


Menu:
  •                IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA
    No. COA18-351
    Filed: 6 November 2018
    Wilkes County, No. 17 CVS 201
    NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC, d/b/a CHAMPION MORTGAGE COMPANY,
    Plaintiff,
    v.
    JERRY CURRY and PAMELA CURRY; MELISSA CARLTON HOLMES; RAY M.
    WARREN, JR.; J. GREGORY MATTHEWS, as Personal Representative of the Estate
    of EULALA WARREN McNEIL; SECRETARY of HOUSING & URBAN
    DEVELOPMENT; and SATTERFIELD LEGAL, PLLC, as Trustee, Defendants.
    Appeal by plaintiff from order entered 27 September 2017 by Judge Susan E.
    Bray in Wilkes County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 3 October
    2018.
    McGuireWoods, LLP, by Christopher B. Karlsson, for plaintiff-appellant.
    McElwee Firm, PLLC, by John M. Logsdon, for defendant-appellees Jerry
    Curry and Pamela Curry.
    TYSON, Judge.
    Nationstar Mortgage, LLC, d/b/a Champion Mortgage Company (“Champion”),
    appeals from the trial court’s order, which granted Jerry and Pamela Curry’s
    (collectively “the Currys”) motion for judgment on the pleadings. We affirm.
    I. Background
    NATIONSTAR MORTG., LLC V. CURRY
    Opinion of the Court
    In 2011, Eulala W. McNeil, now deceased, owned two tracts of real property
    located in Wilkes County (“the Property”). On 25 January 2011, McNeil obtained a
    loan from and executed a promissory note payable to Sidus Financial, LLC (“Sidus”),
    which was secured by a deed of trust on the Property in favor of Sidus (“the Deed of
    Trust”). The Deed of Trust was recorded with the Wilkes County Register of Deeds
    on 31 January 2011 and encumbered the Property.
    That same day, Sidus transferred its rights in the Deed of Trust to Metlife
    Home Loans, a division of Metlife Bank, N.A. (“Metlife”), through an assignment of
    deed of trust that was also properly recorded. Subsequently, Metlife assigned the
    Deed of Trust to Champion on 15 October 2012. Champion properly recorded this
    assignment of deed of trust the same day.
    McNeil died on 11 August 2012, and Melissa Carlton Holmes was subsequently
    appointed as executrix of McNeil’s estate. On 13 December 2012, Holmes filed a
    petition (‘the Petition”) in special proceeding 12 SP 368 (“the Special Proceeding”) to
    seek a sale of the Property in order to repay the debts of the estate. The only
    respondent party named in the Petition was Ray M. Warren, an heir of McNeil.
    On 18 December 2012, Holmes filed an amended petition (“the Amended
    Petition”), adding Metlife, Sidus, and “HUD” as additional respondent parties.
    Neither petition named Champion in the caption of the case. However, both the
    Petition and Amended Petition described Champion’s Deed of Trust on the Property
    -2-
    NATIONSTAR MORTG., LLC V. CURRY
    Opinion of the Court
    as a debt of the estate. Specifically, the Petition stated one of the debts of the estate
    was “[t]he previously stated reverse mortgage owed to Champion Lender in the
    current amount of $66,988.86” and petitioner prayed for the court to “sell [the
    Property] in order to create assets to pay the taxes and above referenced debts of the
    Estate.”
    On 26 March 2013, Robert G. Green, Jr., Esq., the attorney of record in the
    Special Proceeding, filed an affidavit of service by certified mail (“the Affidavit of
    Service”) stating he had served Champion “with a copy of the Petition, Amended
    Petition, Notice of Hearing, and Special Proceedings Summons” by certified mail.
    Green also attached a copy of the signed receipt, which showed Champion had
    received these documents on 23 March 2013.
    On 26 April 2013, the Wilkes County Clerk of Superior Court entered an order
    (“the Order of Sale”) authorizing the sale of the Property. The Order of Sale listed
    the “reverse mortgage owed to Champion” as one of the debts of the estate and
    concluded as a matter of law that the Property should be sold to create assets to pay
    “the above referenced debts of the Estate.”        Pursuant to the Order of Sale, the
    appointed commissioner posted a notice of sale (“the Notice of Sale”), which included
    the following statements: “This sale is subject to ad valorem taxes and such other
    liens as may appear of record[,]” and “[t]his sale is made subject to all prior liens and
    encumbrances, and unpaid taxes and assessments.”
    -3-
    NATIONSTAR MORTG., LLC V. CURRY
    Opinion of the Court
    The sale of the Property was conducted on 26 July 2013.          After the sale
    remained open for a period of time for upset bids to expire, the Currys became the
    final bidder and purchased the Property for and paid $90,000. On 16 September 2013,
    the commissioner deducted fees and expenses and disbursed $84,692.69 to the
    executrix of the McNeil estate as proceeds from the sale of the Property. On 19
    September 2013, the commissioner executed and delivered a deed for the Property to
    the Currys. After receiving the net sale proceeds in her capacity as executrix of the
    McNeil estate, Holmes embezzled the money and did not remit and pay the proceeds
    from the sale to extinguish the outstanding balance of the Deed of Trust to Champion.
    Champion commenced this action by filing a complaint on 21 February 2017 in
    superior court to seek a declaration that Champion’s Deed of Trust is a first lien on
    the Property and an order for judicial foreclosure of the Deed of Trust. In their
    answer, the Currys alleged (1) an affirmative defense that, by operation of collateral
    estoppel, the Special Proceeding Order of Sale barred Champion’s claims (“the Second
    Affirmative Defense”), and (2) asserted a counterclaim for a declaration that
    Champion’s lien was extinguished by the sale of the Property in the Special
    Proceeding and their payment of the purchase price (“the First Counterclaim”).
    The Currys subsequently filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings
    asserting their First Counterclaim and Second Affirmative Defense. Following a
    hearing on 18 September 2017, the trial court entered judgment on the pleadings in
    -4-
    NATIONSTAR MORTG., LLC V. CURRY
    Opinion of the Court
    favor of the Currys on both their First Counterclaim and Second Affirmative Defense.
    The trial court’s order decreed that (1) “Champion Mortgage is collaterally estopped
    from seeking a judicial sale of [the Property]” and (2) the “Curry[s] hold title to [the
    Property] free and clear of the lien of [Champion’s] Deed of Trust.”
    Champion filed timely notice of appeal from the trial court’s order granting the
    Currys’ motion for judgment on the pleadings.
    II. Jurisdiction
    Jurisdiction lies in this Court pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7A-27(b)(1) (2017).
    III. Issues
    Champion argues the trial court erred by concluding as a matter of law
    Champion was a named party to and bound by the Special Proceeding. Champion
    also argues the trial court erred by granting judgment on the Currys’ First
    Counterclaim by decreeing the Special Proceeding extinguished Champion’s prior
    recorded lien on the Property. Lastly, Champion argues the trial court erred in
    applying the doctrine of collateral estoppel in granting judgment on the Currys’
    Second Affirmative Defense.
    We need not reach the issue of whether Champion was collaterally estopped
    from seeking a judicial sale of the Property. Because Champion was on notice of and
    was a party to the Special Proceeding, the Currys acquired the Property free and
    clear of Champion’s Deed of Trust.
    -5-
    NATIONSTAR MORTG., LLC V. CURRY
    Opinion of the Court
    IV. Standard of Review
    The trial court’s order granted the Currys’ motion for judgment on the
    pleadings pursuant to North Carolina Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). However, when
    “matters outside the pleadings [have been] considered by the [trial] court in reaching
    its decision on the judgment on the pleadings, the motion [is] treated as if it were a
    motion for summary judgment” under Rule 56 on review by this Court. Helms v.
    Holland, 
    124 N.C. App. 629
    , 633, 
    478 S.E.2d 513
    , 516 (1996) (citation omitted).
    In making its decision on the Currys’ motion for judgment on the pleadings,
    the trial court’s order stated the court had considered the pleadings and exhibits,
    arguments of counsel at the hearing, and certain documents from the Special
    Proceeding file submitted during the 18 September 2017 hearing. One of these
    documents from the Special Proceeding file was the Affidavit of Service asserting
    Champion was served “with a copy of the Petition, Amended Petition, Notice of
    Hearing, and Special Proceedings Summons” by certified mail with return receipt.
    With these documents outside the pleadings being considered, the 12(c) motion for
    judgment on the pleadings will be treated for review as a motion for summary
    judgment under Rule 56 on appeal. See Horne v. Town of Blowing Rock, 223 N.C.
    App. 26, 30, 
    732 S.E.2d 614
    , 617 (2012) (“Our case law has consistently treated
    submission of affidavits as a matter outside the pleadings.” (citation omitted)).
    -6-
    NATIONSTAR MORTG., LLC V. CURRY
    Opinion of the Court
    “Summary judgment is appropriate if the pleadings, depositions, answers to
    interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that
    there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that [a] party is entitled to
    judgment as a matter of law.” Summey v. Barker, 
    357 N.C. 492
    , 496, 
    586 S.E.2d 247
    ,
    249 (2003) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); see also N.C. Gen. Stat. §
    1A-1, Rule 56(c) (2017).
    A defendant may show entitlement to summary
    judgment by (1) proving that an essential element of the
    plaintiff’s case is non-existent, or (2) showing through
    discovery that the plaintiff cannot produce evidence to
    support an essential element of his or her claim, or (3)
    showing that the plaintiff cannot surmount an affirmative
    defense. Summary judgment is not appropriate where
    matters of credibility and determining the weight of the
    evidence exist.
    Once the party seeking summary judgment makes
    the required showing, the burden shifts to the nonmoving
    party to produce a forecast of evidence demonstrating
    specific facts, as opposed to allegations, showing that he
    can at least establish a prima facie case at trial. To hold
    otherwise . . . would be to allow plaintiffs to rest on their
    pleadings, effectively neutralizing the useful and efficient
    procedural tool of summary judgment.
    Draughon v. Harnett Cty. Bd. of Educ., 
    158 N.C. App. 208
    , 212, 
    580 S.E.2d 732
    , 735
    (2003) (citations and quotation marks omitted), aff’d per curiam, 
    358 N.C. 131
    , 
    591 S.E.2d 521
    (2004).
    “Our standard of review of an appeal from summary judgment is de novo[.]” In
    re Will of Jones, 
    362 N.C. 569
    , 573, 
    669 S.E.2d 572
    , 576 (2008) (citing Forbis v. Neal,
    -7-
    NATIONSTAR MORTG., LLC V. CURRY
    Opinion of the Court
    
    361 N.C. 519
    , 523-24, 
    649 S.E.2d 382
    , 385 (2007)). “The evidence produced by the
    parties is viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.” Hardin v. KCS
    Int’l, Inc., 
    199 N.C. App. 687
    , 695, 
    682 S.E.2d 726
    , 733 (2009) (citation omitted). “If
    the evidentiary materials filed by the parties indicate that a genuine issue of material
    fact does exist, the motion for summary judgment must be denied.” Vernon, Vernon,
    Wooten, Brown & Andrews, P.A. v. Miller, 
    73 N.C. App. 295
    , 298, 
    326 S.E.2d 316
    , 319
    (1985).
    V. Party to the Special Proceeding
    Champion argues the trial court erred by concluding as a matter of law
    Champion was a party to and bound by the orders and judgment from the Special
    Proceeding. Champion asserts “[i]n the absence of a summons and a petition naming,
    and properly served on, Champion, it could not have been a party to the Special
    Proceeding.” The Currys assert the Affidavit of Service from the Special Proceeding
    complies with the requirements for proof of service and shows Champion was a party
    to and bound by the Special Proceeding.
    Rule 4(j)(1)(c) of our Rules of Civil Procedure permits service by certified mail
    “[b]y mailing a copy of the summons and of the complaint, . . . return receipt
    requested, addressed to the party to be served, and delivering to the addressee.” N.C.
    Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 4(j)(1)(c) (2017). Once service by certified mail is complete,
    -8-
    NATIONSTAR MORTG., LLC V. CURRY
    Opinion of the Court
    the serving party may make proof of service by filing an affidavit in accordance with
    N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-75.10. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 4(j2)(2) (2017).
    Under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-75.10(a)(4) (2017), the affidavit must aver:
    a. That a copy of the summons and complaint was
    deposited in the post office for mailing by registered or
    certified mail, return receipt requested;
    b. That it was in fact received as evidenced by the attached
    registry receipt or other evidence satisfactory to the
    court of delivery to the addressee; and
    c. That the genuine receipt or other evidence of delivery is
    attached.
    Such an affidavit, when filed along with a return receipt signed by the
    individual who received the mail, “raises a presumption that the person who received
    the mail or delivery and signed the receipt was an agent of the addressee authorized
    by appointment or by law to be served or to accept service of process[.]” N.C. Gen.
    Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 4(j2)(2); see also Granville Med. Ctr. v. Tipton, 
    160 N.C. App. 484
    ,
    490-91, 
    586 S.E.2d 791
    , 796 (2003).
    Here, the Affidavit of Service comports with N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-75.10. The
    Affidavit of Service states the petitioner in the Special Proceeding attempted to serve
    Champion “with a copy of the Petition, Amended Petition, Notice of Hearing, and
    Special Proceedings Summons in the [Special Proceeding] by certified mail, return
    receipt requested,” and that Champion had, in fact, received service of the documents.
    Attached to the Affidavit of Service is the return receipt showing delivery to
    -9-
    NATIONSTAR MORTG., LLC V. CURRY
    Opinion of the Court
    Champion. Therefore, the Currys are entitled to a rebuttable presumption of valid
    service. See Carpenter v. Agee, 
    171 N.C. App. 98
    , 100, 
    613 S.E.2d 735
    , 736 (2005) (“By
    filing a copy of the signed return receipt, along with an affidavit that comports with
    N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-75.10, plaintiff is entitled to a rebuttable presumption of valid
    service.”).
    Champion has failed to rebut this presumption. At the 18 September 2017
    hearing, Champion argued the person who had signed the receipt was not its
    registered agent. However, to rebut the presumption of regular service, Champion
    needed to “present evidence that service of process failed to accomplish its goal of
    providing [it] with notice of the [Special Proceeding], rather than simply questioning
    the identity, role, or authority of the person who signed for delivery of the summons.”
    
    Granville, 160 N.C. App. at 493
    , 586 S.E.2d at 797.
    Champion’s own admission shows that it had received prior notice of the
    Special Proceeding.     Paragraph 59 of the Currys’ First Counterclaim states:
    “[Champion] was made party to the Special Proceeding and was served with
    summons and a copy of the Petition.” In response, Champion stated the following:
    “[Champion] admits that it was included as a party to be noticed in the Special
    Proceedings action . . . .” (emphasis supplied). This statement shows the Affidavit of
    Service “accomplish[ed] its goal of providing [Champion] with notice of the [Special
    Proceeding.]” See 
    id. Champion has
    failed to rebut the presumption of proper service.
    - 10 -
    NATIONSTAR MORTG., LLC V. CURRY
    Opinion of the Court
    Champion further asserts that the trial court erred in concluding it was a party
    to the Special Proceeding because Champion was never identified in the caption of
    either the Petition or Amended Petition.             Champion cites Lee v. County of
    Cumberland in support of its contention. __ N.C. App. __, 
    809 S.E.2d 407
    , 
    2018 WL 710085
    at *1 (2018) (unpublished). Lee is an unpublished opinion and, therefore,
    lacks precedential value. N.C. R. App. P. 30(e)(3). Nonetheless, this Court finds it
    instructive.
    In Lee, the plaintiff sent the defendant, Keating, a copy of the amended
    complaint by certified mail; however, the plaintiff failed to name Keating in the
    caption of his complaint and never mentioned Keating in the body of the complaint.
    
    Id. at *7.
    This Court held “[b]ecause Plaintiff failed to name Keating in the caption
    of his complaint, and because Plaintiff failed to mention Keating in the body of the
    complaint, we conclude the trial court properly granted the motion to dismiss as to
    Keating.” 
    Id. In reaching
    this decision, the Court relied on Roberts v. Hill, stating:
    In Roberts v. Hill, . . . the plaintiff named a
    defendant in the complaint’s caption, but failed to make
    any allegations against that defendant in the body of his
    complaint.    Our State Supreme Court directed the
    defendant’s name be stricken from the complaint since
    there were no allegations against that defendant. Here, as
    in Roberts, Plaintiff fails to make any allegations against
    Keating in the body of his complaint, in addition to failing
    to name Keating in his complaint’s caption.
    - 11 -
    NATIONSTAR MORTG., LLC V. CURRY
    Opinion of the Court
    
    Id. (emphasis supplied)
    (citation omitted) (quoting Roberts v. Hill, 
    240 N.C. 373
    , 377,
    
    82 S.E.2d 373
    , 377 (1954)).
    The facts here are readily distinguishable from both Lee and Roberts. Although
    neither petition named Champion as such in the caption, the body of both the Petition
    and Amended Petition described Champion’s Deed of Trust mortgage, listed the
    amount owed to Champion on this mortgage, and stated the Property should be sold
    to pay off Champion’s debt. Because the body of the Petition and Amended Petition
    alerted Champion to the nature of the Special Proceeding and asserted allegations
    specifically naming Champion, the mere failure to include Champion’s name in the
    caption is not fatal. See 
    Roberts, 240 N.C. at 377
    , 82 S.E.2d at 377.
    The Affidavit of Service shows the sale to the Currys was entitled to a
    rebuttable presumption of valid service of the “Petition, Amended Petition, Notice of
    Hearing, and Special Proceedings Summons[,]” and Champion has failed to rebut this
    presumption. Further, Champion’s own admission indicates that it had been served
    and received prior notice of the Special Proceeding.      Although the Petition and
    Amended Petition failed to name Champion in the caption, the body of these
    documents specifically named Champion’s mortgage and provided Champion with
    notice of the Special Proceeding. For these reasons, Champion was a named party
    within and bound by the Special Proceeding. This assignment of error is dismissed.
    VI. Status of Champion’s Deed of Trust
    - 12 -
    NATIONSTAR MORTG., LLC V. CURRY
    Opinion of the Court
    Champion argues the trial court erred by granting judgment on the Currys’
    First Counterclaim by declaring the Special Proceeding had extinguished Champion’s
    prior recorded lien on the Property. We disagree.
    As an initial matter, Champion, in its complaint, requested the trial court to
    declare that equitable title to the Property is vested in Champion and legal title is
    vested in the trustee of the Deed of Trust. Under North Carolina law, “[a] mortgage
    or deed of trust to secure a debt passes legal title to the mortgagee or trustee, as the
    case may be, but the mortgagor or trustor is looked on as the equitable owner of the
    land . . . .” Daniel Boone Complex, Inc. v. Furst, 
    43 N.C. App. 95
    , 101, 
    258 S.E.2d 379
    ,
    385 (1979). N.C. Gen. Stat. § 28A-15-2(b) (2017) states:
    The title to real property of a decedent is vested in
    the decedent’s heirs as of the time of the decedent’s death;
    but the title to real property of a decedent devised under a
    valid probated will becomes vested in the devisees and
    shall relate back to the decedent’s death[.]
    Here, at the time of the Special Proceeding, legal title to the Property was held
    by the trustee of the Deed of Trust for the benefit of Champion, and Ray M. Warren,
    Jr. and Melissa Carlton Holmes held equitable title to the Property, as devisees and
    executrix under the will of Eulala W. McNeil. See id.; see also Complex Inc., 43 N.C.
    App. at 
    101, 258 S.E.2d at 385
    .
    Chapter 28A of the North Carolina General Statutes governs the
    administration of a decedent’s estate. Section 28A-15-1(a) provides: “All of the real
    - 13 -
    NATIONSTAR MORTG., LLC V. CURRY
    Opinion of the Court
    and personal property, both legal and equitable, of a decedent shall be assets
    available for the discharge of debts and other claims against the decedent’s estate[.]”
    N.C. Gen. Stat. § 28A-15-1(a) (2017) (emphasis supplied).
    The executrix or personal representative of the estate may “apply to the clerk
    of superior court of the county where the decedent’s real property . . . is situated, by
    petition, to sell such real property for the payment of debts and other claims against
    the decedent’s estate.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 28A-17-1 (2017). “When real property sought
    to be sold, or any interest therein, is claimed by another person, such claimant may
    be made a party to the proceeding.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 28A-17-6 (2017) (emphasis
    supplied). In addition, the beneficiary of the deed of trust, not the trustee, is the
    proper party to be joined in the proceeding to sell real estate of the decedent. See N.C.
    Gen. Stat. § 45-45.3(c) (2017) (“[T]he trustee is neither a necessary nor a proper party
    to any civil action or proceeding involving (i) title to the real property encumbered by
    the lien of the deed of trust[.]”).
    Here, the Wilkes County Clerk of Superior Court had the authority to enter
    the Order of Sale authorizing the sale of the Property. See N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 28A-15-
    1(a); 28A-17-1 (2017). Holmes, as executrix of McNeil’s estate, petitioned the clerk of
    superior court for an order to sell the Property in order to create liquid assets to pay
    the debts of the estate and the mortgage owed to Champion. As outlined above,
    Champion was a party to, named in and bound by the Special Proceeding; therefore,
    - 14 -
    NATIONSTAR MORTG., LLC V. CURRY
    Opinion of the Court
    the clerk of court had the authority to sell both legal and equitable title in the
    Property. See id.; see also N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 28A-17-6; 45-45.3(c) (2017).
    Champion contends that its lien remained attached to the Property after the
    Special Proceeding, regardless of whether it was a named party to the proceeding or
    not. This contention is without merit for several reasons.
    Although Chapter 28A does not expressly provide for a sale of real property
    owned by an estate pursuant to the clerk’s order to be free and clear of liens, North
    Carolina’s long standing decisional law supports the view that where the lienholder
    is named as a party to the proceeding and the order authorizing the sale does not
    specify that the sale is subject to the lien, the property is sold free and clear of the
    lien to the purchaser. When the purchase price is paid by the purchaser, said lien is
    transferred to the proceeds of the sale. See Jerkins v. Carter, 
    70 N.C. 500
    (1874); see
    also Town of Tarboro v. Pender, 
    153 N.C. 427
    , 
    69 S.E. 425
    (1910); Moore v. Jones, 
    226 N.C. 149
    , 
    36 S.E.2d 920
    (1946); Williams v. Johnson, 
    230 N.C. 338
    , 
    53 S.E.2d 277
    (1949).
    In Moore, the administrator of the estate petitioned the court to have real
    property of the decedent sold to make liquid assets available to pay the following
    debts of the estate: (1) costs of administration, (2) a judgment docketed against the
    decedent, and (3) a deed of trust on real 
    property. 226 N.C. at 150
    , 36 S.E.2d at 921.
    The trial court ordered the costs of administration be paid first because N.C. Gen.
    - 15 -
    NATIONSTAR MORTG., LLC V. CURRY
    Opinion of the Court
    Stat. § 28-105 (now N.C. Gen. Stat. § 28A-19-6) required personal property to be
    distributed to the cost of administration before all other debts of the estate. 
    Id. at 150-51,
    36 S.E.2d at 921-22.
    Our Supreme Court reversed the trial court and held that under section 28-
    105, the statute dictating the order in which debts were to be paid, related exclusively
    to the application of personal property, and not the realty. 
    Id. at 151,
    36 S.E.2d at
    922. The Supreme Court went on to conclude “when the land is sold to make assets
    the proceeds remain real estate until all liens are discharged and are to be applied to
    the payment of such liens in the order of their priority.” 
    Id. Champion contends
    our Supreme Court in Moore “made [it] clear that a lien
    on property sold to make assets remains after the sale.”          However, Champion
    misinterprets this decision.    Our Supreme Court in Moore held that when real
    property, which is burdened by a lien, is sold to make assets, the proceeds must first
    be distributed to satisfy the lien, rather than being distributed in accordance with the
    priority set by the statute governing the distribution of funds from personal property.
    Id.; see also 
    Pender, 153 N.C. at 430
    , 69 S.E.2d at 426 (holding when the court ordered
    decedent’s real property to be sold, the proceeds must be applied according to the
    priority of the liens); 
    Williams, 230 N.C. at 345
    , 53 S.E.2d at 282 (holding when real
    property is sold to make assets, “the proceeds of the sale retain the quality of real
    property to the extent necessary to discharge all liens thereon”).
    - 16 -
    NATIONSTAR MORTG., LLC V. CURRY
    Opinion of the Court
    Because the trial court had incorrectly applied the priority of payment of the
    proceeds and was reversed, our Supreme Court in Moore did not address whether the
    lien would remain on the real estate if the proceeds of the sale were insufficient to
    pay off the debt. See 
    Moore, 226 N.C. at 152
    , 36 S.E.2d at 922-23. Nevertheless, Moore
    supports the position that the lien is transferred to the proceeds of the sale and when
    payment is made the buyer takes the property free and clear when the lienholder is
    made a party to the sale.
    We find additional justification for this position from our Supreme Court in
    Jerkins. 
    See 70 N.C. at 501
    . In Jerkins, our Supreme Court stated the following:
    The order of payment of the debts of the decedent is
    regulated by [statute,] which declares that judgments
    docketed are in force, have priority to the extent to which
    they are a lien on the property of the deceased at his death.
    The extent of the lien is the amount of the judgment, if the
    land is of greater value, but if the real estate is of less
    value, the extent of the lien is the value of the land only.
    Thus, if the value of the real estate is only five hundred
    dollars, and the personal assets fifteen hundred dollars,
    and the judgment is for one thousand dollars, the plaintiff
    would be entitled as a credit, upon his judgment, to five
    hundred dollars out of the real assets, that is, the value of
    the real estate, and for the residue of his judgment, he
    would come in pro rata with other creditors, as to the
    remaining personal assets.
    
    Id. The precedents
    of Jerkins, Pender, Moore, and Williams, read and taken together,
    support the proposition that when a lienholder is joined in a proceeding to sell land
    to make liquid assets to satisfy debts for a decedent’s estate, the lienholder’s lien
    - 17 -
    NATIONSTAR MORTG., LLC V. CURRY
    Opinion of the Court
    follows the proceeds of the sale and the purchaser of the real estate who paid the
    purchase price in excess of the lein, takes title free and clear of the lien.
    Here, Chapter 28A sets out the procedures for the disposition of a decedent’s
    property and Holmes, as the qualified executrix, followed these procedures. The
    Order of Sale disposed of both the legal and equitable title to the property, which
    included Champion’s deed of trust, and the Order of Sale specified the purpose of the
    sale was to make liquid assets to pay the debts of the estate, including the Champion
    Deed of Trust. See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 28A-15-1(a). Because Champion was a party to
    the Special Proceeding, its lien followed the proceeds of the sale and the Currys took
    title to the Property free and clear of Champion’s lien. See 
    Jerkins, 70 N.C. at 501
    ;
    
    Pender, 153 N.C. at 430
    , 69 S.E. at 425; Moore, 226 N.C. at 
    151, 36 S.E.2d at 922
    ;
    
    Williams, 230 N.C. at 345
    , 53 S.E.2d at 282.
    Champion also contends its lien remains upon the Property because the Order
    of Sale did not explicitly state the sale was to be “free and clear” and the Notice of
    Sale included the following language: “This sale is subject to ad valorem taxes and
    such other liens as may appear of record[,]” and “[t]his sale is made subject to all prior
    liens and encumbrances, and unpaid taxes and assessments.”
    Even if the Order of Sale did not explicitly state the sale of the real property
    was to be free and clear of Champion’s lien, it did specify that “it [was] in the best
    interests of the Decedent’s Estate and for the necessity of paying the Decedent’s just
    - 18 -
    NATIONSTAR MORTG., LLC V. CURRY
    Opinion of the Court
    debts” to sell the Property “to create assets with which to pay the taxes and the above
    referenced debts of the Estate.” The Order of Sale listed one of these referenced debts
    as the “mortgage owed to Champion Mortgage in the current amount of $66,988.86[.]”
    The Property was sold pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 28A-17-1 et seq., which
    allows the administrator to sell both the legal and equitable title and claims of all
    parties to the proceeding. As concluded above, Champion was a named party to, was
    served notice of, and bound by the Special Proceeding. The commissioner of the
    Special Proceeding under the clerk’s order had the judicial authority to sell and
    convey all interests in the Property. Although the Notice of Sale said the sale was
    subject to prior liens, the substance of the Order of Sale made it clear the proceeds
    generated from the sale were directed to pay off these liens and debts of the estate.
    Although Champion never received the payoff, due to the executrix absconding
    with the proceeds, this does not change the fact that the Currys, as last and highest
    bidder at the sale, paid for the Property and took the Property free and clear of
    Champion’s lien. See Cherry v. Woolard, 
    244 N.C. 603
    , 613, 
    94 S.E.2d 562
    , 568 (1956)
    (“[I]t [is] not incumbent upon the purchaser at the judicial sale to see that the money
    paid for the property was properly disbursed.” (citation omitted)).           “When the
    purchaser paid his bid into court, or to its officer duly authorized to receive it, he was
    relieved of any further responsibility in connection with the interest then being sold.”
    
    Id. at 613,
    94 S.E.2d at 569 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Here,
    - 19 -
    NATIONSTAR MORTG., LLC V. CURRY
    Opinion of the Court
    the Currys paid the purchase price, which was well in excess of Champion’s lien, to
    the commissioner under the clerk’s order, and had no further duty to ensure that the
    commissioner or the executrix paid Champion. See 
    id. In North
    Carolina, an executrix is under a duty to ensure that creditors of the
    estate are paid according to their class. See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 28A-19-13 (2017). If the
    personal representative fails to pay out claims of the estate in accordance with their
    class, the personal representative commits a devastavit. Id.; see also Coggins v.
    Flythe, 
    113 N.C. 102
    , 113, 
    18 S.E. 96
    , 99 (1893) (“The general rule, both at law and in
    equity, is that it would be a devastavit if an executor or administrator should give
    preference to a debt of lower class over those duly presented of a higher dignity[.]”
    (citation omitted)). However, in addressing the respective claims of Champion and
    the Currys only, which is all that is before us in this case, it is unnecessary for us to
    address any claims Champion may assert against the commissioner of the Special
    Proceeding and Holmes as the executrix of McNeil’s estate.
    Champion was made a party to and received notice of the Special Proceeding.
    The procedure followed in the Special Proceeding allowed the commissioner to sell
    the Property to the Currys, as the highest and last bidder at the sale, upon their
    payment, free and clear of Champion’s lien.           Although the Notice of Hearing
    erroneously stated the sale was subject to all prior liens, Champion’s lien followed
    the proceeds, and the substance of the Order of Sale showed the sale of the Property
    - 20 -
    NATIONSTAR MORTG., LLC V. CURRY
    Opinion of the Court
    was to be conveyed upon payment as free and clear of Champion’s lien. The trial
    court properly granted judgment on the Currys’ First Counterclaim by declaring the
    Special Proceeding extinguished Champion’s prior recorded lien on the Property.
    VII. Conclusion
    The Affidavit of Service created a rebuttable presumption of valid service of
    the petition and summons and Champion failed to rebut this presumption. The trial
    court did not err by concluding as a matter of law Champion was a named party to
    and bound by the Special Proceeding. The trial court also did not err in concluding
    as a matter of law the Special Proceeding extinguished Champion’s prior recorded
    lien on the Property, which was converted into the paid proceeds of the sale.
    The trial court also correctly ruled the Currys, upon payment of proceeds
    exceeding the lien, took the Property free and clear of the lien. As a result, it is
    unnecessary for this Court to address Champion’s remaining arguments concerning
    the trial court’s application of the doctrine of collateral estoppel.
    The order of the trial court granting judgment on the pleadings, as reviewed
    on appeal for summary judgment under Rule 56, is affirmed. It is so ordered.
    AFFIRMED.
    Judges CALABRIA and ZACHARY concur.
    - 21 -