Wells Fargo Credit Corp. v. Selby ( 2001 )

GARRETT, J.,

dissenting:

11 I would reverse the order of the trial court. Specifically, I agree with Appellant, Wells Fargo, in its argument concerning lis pendens. Among other considerations, applying lis pendens will prevent a forfeiture. Our Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the law abhors a forfeiture.

¶2 While Appellees had an interest in the land, to-wit: a tax lien, the majority opinion allows them to acquire a new interest [title and ownership] contrary to the common law and statutory doctrine of lis pendens. A lien is a far ery from title and ownership.

13 I respectfully dissent.