of the lien statute. We now hold that a vendor’s interest in an executory land sale contract is not “real property” as that term is used in § 78-22-1. Although we have not previously considered the nature of a vendor’s interest in an installment land contract, a number of other jurisdictions have. The cases are almost evenly divided, with a slight majority allowing the judgment lien to attach to the vendor’s interest. R. Cunningham, W. Stoebuck, & D. Whitman, The Law of Property § 10.13, at 701 (1984). Compare Mooring v. Brown, 763 F.2d 386 (10th Cir.1985) (applying Colorado law), First Security Bank v. Rogers, 91 Idaho 654, 657, 429 P.2d 386, 389 (1967), May v. Emerson, 52 Or. 262, 266-67, 96 P. 454, 456 (1908), and Heath v. Dodson, 7 Wash.2d 667, 672-73, 110 P.2d 845, 847 (1941) (<HOLDING>) with Snow Bros. Hardware Co. v. Ellis, 180
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 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 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