Bank of Inman v. Graves
| Decision Date | 05 November 1938 |
| Docket Number | 33716. |
| Citation | 148 Kan. 468,83 P.2d 666 |
| Parties | BANK OF INMAN v. GRAVES et al. |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
In action to set aside a deed from debtor to her daughter as being in fraud of creditors, question whether debtor owed daughter a bona fide debt, the payment of which constituted a sufficient consideration, was a fact question.
In action to set aside deed from debtor to her daughter as being in fraud of creditors, whether value of lands conveyed to daughter was substantially in excess of debt owed to daughter was a fact question.
In action to set aside a deed from debtor to her daughter as being in fraud of creditors, whether there was intent to defraud was a fact question.
Where trial court's findings in action to set aside deed as being in fraud of creditors, that there was a bona fide debt owing to grantee, that value of lands conveyed was not substantially in excess of the debt, and that there was no intent to defraud, were supported by evidence, they were conclusive on appeal.
In an action to set aside a deed as in fraud of creditors of the grantor, the question whether there was a bona fide debt from the grantor to the grantee, the payment of which constituted a sufficient consideration, whether the value of the lands conveyed was substantially in excess of the debt and whether there was intent to defraud were largely questions of fact and the findings of the trial court thereon, being supported by evidence, are conclusive on appeal.
Appeal from District Court, McPherson County; John G. Somers, Judge.
Action by the Bank of Inman against Emma B. Graves and others to set aside a deed as being in fraud of creditors. From an adverse judgment, the plaintiff appeals.
Judgment affirmed.
J. R Rhoades and George R. Lehmberg, both of McPherson, for appellant.
C. L Foster, of Sedgwick, for appellees.
This was an action to set aside a deed as being in fraud of creditors, and from an adverse judgment plaintiff appeals presenting for our consideration three questions: Was the finding of the trial court that there was a bona fide pre-existing indebtedness of the grantor to the grantee supported by the evidence; Was the agreement for future support a valid consideration for the deed in question when the grantor did not retain sufficient property to satisfy her creditors; and Did the trial court err in rendering judgment?
Without reciting the evidence in detail, it appears that appellee, Emma B. Graves, owned a farm of about eighty acres in McPherson County, and a residence property in the town of Inman. In 1922 Mrs. Graves was seriously hurt in an automobile accident, her medical expenses being paid by her daughter. For a time she remained in the daughter's home where she was taken care of. The income from the farm was not sufficient for Mrs. Graves' needs and her daughter thereafter supplied her with money, fuel, groceries and other supplies. At various times mention was made there should be some agreement for payment, but nothing was done until the conveyance and agreements hereafter mentioned were made. Mrs. Graves had executed a note with her son, Brooks, and another note with her son, Dwight, both payable to the appellant bank. While these notes were outstanding, and on August 2, 1932, Mrs. Graves entered into a written agreement with her daughter, Mrs. Hartford, whereby she agreed to convey the farm lands to the daughter in consideration of which the daughter was to furnish her with proper food and clothing and to provide maintenance for her in every way until her death. On the same date the mother executed a general warranty deed conveying the farm to the daughter, the expressed consideration being "One Dollar and other valuable considerations". This deed was recorded September 28, 1932. Shortly thereafter the cashier of the bank saw Mrs. Graves and had a conversation with her about conveying the farm and at that time Mrs. Graves gave him a statement in writing in which she said she had made the conveyance to provide for herself during her lifetime. There was no showing the grantee knew anything about the conversation or the statement. Shortly thereafter the two notes were reduced to judgments of $820.44 and $884.43 and executions being returned unsatisfied, the present suit was filed.
On the trial, evidence was offered concerning the agreement of the mother to pay the daughter, who said her expenditures for her mother were over $1,700. There was evidence the farm was not very productive, and that the value of the residence property was about $3,000 and of the farm was about $4,000. The trial court, on its own motion, not being satisfied whether the residence property was a homestead or not, opened up the trial for further evidence, and thereafter found the residence property was not exempt from execution. A stay of execution for ninety days was allowed (apparently to permit negotiations for a loan) and the cause was allowed to remain open and undecided. Thereafter the residence property was sold on execution, the trial court approving the same only when the sale price was fixed at $1,225. This amount was divided and applied on the judgments. Thereafter some further testimony was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Printed Media Services v. Solna Web, Inc.
...is or is not fraudulent as to creditors is a question of fact. Houska v. Lake, 148 Kan. 229, 80 P.2d 1102 (1938); Bank of Inman v. Graves, 148 Kan. 468, 83 P.2d 666 (1938). A conveyance can only be set aside by clear and convincing evidence of fraud. Hustead v. Bendix Corp., 233 Kan. 870, 6......
-
Credit Union of America v. Myers
...is not fraudulent as to creditors is largely a question of fact. Houska v. Lake, 148 Kan. 229, 80 P.2d 1102 (1938); Bank of Inman v. Graves, 148 Kan. 468, 83 P.2d 666 (1938). 6. A court should be cautious in granting a motion for summary judgment when the resolution of the dispositive issue......
-
Polk v. Polk
...is or is not fraudulent as to creditors is largely a question of fact. (Houska v. Lake, 148 Kan. 229, 80 P.2d 1102; Bank of Inman v. Graves, 148 Kan. 468, 83 P.2d 666.) That being so, our ancient rule must be applied in this case, namely, that where findings made by the trial court are supp......
-
Carson v. Chevron Chemical Co.
...the amount sued for in case No. 77-C-11. The assignment was, however, made prior to the judgment in No. 77-C-11. In Bank of Inman v. Graves, 148 Kan. 468, 83 P.2d 666 (1938), the Supreme Court stated the general rule concerning fraudulent "In an action to set aside a deed as in fraud of cre......