1253-54 (Utah 1987), we reiterated the proposition that under the doctrine of equitable conversion, a vendee’s equitable interest in an installment land sale contract constitutes real property for purposes of § 78-22-1; however, this Court has not previously decided the nature of the vendor’s interest for pu 238, 240-41, 21 S.W.2d 162, 163 (1929), Hull v. Maryland Casualty Co., 79 So.2d 517, 518-19 (Fla.1954), Bank of Hawaii v. Horwoth, 71 Haw. 204,-, 787 P.2d 674, 679 (1990), Cumming v. First Nat’l Bank, 199 Iowa 667, 669, 202 N.W. 556, 556 (1925), Clarence M. Bull, Inc. v. Goldman, 30 Md.App. 665, 667-68, 353 A.2d 661, 663 (1976), Marks v. City of Tucumcari, 93 N.M. 4, 6-7, 595 P.2d 1199, 1201-02 (1979), and Mueller v. Novelty Dye Works, 273 Wis. 501, 507, 78 N.W.2d 881, 884 (1956) (<HOLDING>). See also 46 Am.Jur.2d Judgments § 266 (1969);
holding that the land contract vendors were entitled to insurance benefits when before the fire that damaged the subject property the vendors obtained a judgment of forfeiture based on the vendees default on the land contract holding that a judgment lien attaches to a vendors interest in an executory land contract holding that a judgment lien does not at tach to a vendors interest in an executory land contract holding vendors right to receive payment under a land sale contract was personal property and a security interest representing that personal property right constituted realty paper and was subject to article 9 holding that the citys judgment lien could not attach to vendors legal title because the interest retained by a vendor under an executory contract of sale was personalty