Belleville Casket Co. v. Brueggeman

• Decision Date: 05 September 1944
• Docket Number: 38945
• Parties: Belleville Casket Company, a Corporation, Appellant, v. Carl E. Brueggeman, Hilda E. Brueggeman, Helen Marie Karn, Robert B. Karn, Walter R. Douglas, Trustee, v. Selvaggi, Emil A. Fuszner, Trustee, the Trust Company of Kirkwood, a Corporation, and R. v. Nicholas
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

182 S.W.2d 555

353 Mo. 357

Belleville Casket Company, a Corporation, Appellant, v. Carl E. Brueggeman, Hilda E. Brueggeman, Helen Marie Karn, Robert B. Karn, Walter R. Douglas, Trustee, v. Selvaggi, Emil A. Fuszner, Trustee, the Trust Company of Kirkwood, a Corporation, and R. v. Nicholas

No. 38945

Supreme Court of Missouri

September 5, 1944

Rehearing Denied October 9, 1944.

Appeal from Circuit Court of County of St. Louis; Hon. Julius R Nolte, Judge.

Affirmed.

Paul M. Gerwitz, Jr., and Suelthaus & Krueger for appellant.

(1) The conveyances by which the record title to the Topping Road property was vested in Carl and Hilda Brueggeman; in Edward J. Merk and Florence E. Merk; in Helen Marie Karn; in Helen Karn and Robert B. Karn, and finally in Hilda Brueggeman were all voluntary conveyances and were presumptively fraudulent as to the Belleville Casket Company, Inc. Scharff v. McGaugh, 103 S.W. 550; Godchaux Sugars, Inc., v. Quinn, 95 S.W.2d 82; Snyder v. Free, 21 S.W. 847; McCollum v. Crain, 74 S.W. 650; Lynes v. Holt, 1 S.W.2d 121; May v. Gibler, 4 S.W.2d 769; First Natl. Bank v. Hopper, 270 S.W. 405. (2) Defendant Hilda Brueggeman failed to establish a bona fide interest in the Topping Road property. Conrad v. Diehl, 129 S.W.2d 870; Dawes v. Williams, 40 S.W.2d 644; East St. Louis Ice & Cold Stg. Co. v. Kuhlmann, 142 S.W. 253; Farmers & Traders Bank v. Kendrick, 108 S.W.2d 62; Oetting v. Green, 166 S.W.2d 548; Lomax & Stanley Bank v. Peacher, 30 S.W.2d 44; Zehnder v. Stark, 154 S.W. 92; Cole v. Cole, 132 S.W. 734; Milligan v. Bing, 108 S.W.2d 108. (3) Because of the claim made by the defendant Hilda Brueggeman as to the origin and course of her alleged monetary interest in the Topping Road property, the court erred in excluding evidence as to defendant Carl E. Brueggeman's indebtedness at the time when the second Moorlands lot was acquired. 27 C.J., page 811, sec. 747; Blue v. Penniston, 27 Mo. 272; Stout v. Stout, 77 Ind. 537; Paulk v. Cooke, 39 Conn. 566; Schwab v. Powers, 228 Ala. 205; Ashbaugh v. Sauer, 268 Mich. 467; Williamson v. Bender, 107 N.J.Eq. 466; 37 C.J.S., Fraudulent Conveyances, p. 908, sec. 64. (4) Even if defendant Hilda Brueggeman had been able to establish a bona fide interest in the Topping Road property, nevertheless, the foreclosure of February 24, 1934, and the conveyance by the trustee for Carl E. Brueggeman and Hilda Brueggeman to Edward J. Merk and Florence E. Merk, terminated any entirety or other interest. Williams v. Safety S. & L. Assn., 58 S.W.2d 787; Safety S. & L. Assn. v. Williams, 71 S.W.2d 848; Magidson v. Stern, 148 S.W.2d 144; Wakefield v. Dinger, 135 S.W.2d 17; Reed v. Inness, 102 S.W.2d 711; Loeb v. Dowling, 162 S.W.2d 875; Martin v. Castle, 91 S.W. 930; Roosevelt Hotel Corp. v. Williams, 56 S.W.2d 801; Bragg v. Ross, 162 S.W.2d 263. (5) Defendant Hilda Brueggeman testified that the foreclosure sale on February 24, 1934, by which title was conveyed to Edward J. Merk and Florence E. Merk, was for the purpose of putting her property in other people's names so that a judgment creditor would not be able to collect. Under such circumstances, equity will grant no relief to a person making such fraudulent conveyance. Keener v. Williams, 271 S.W. 489; Creamer v. Bivert, 113 S.W. 1118; Stierlin v. Teschemacher, 64 S.W.2d 647; Mercantile-Commerce Bk. & Tr. Co. v. Meletio, 84 S.W.2d 655; Jones v. Jefferson, 66 S.W.2d 555. (6) The agreement between the Lake Forest Development Corporation, the Laclede Bond & Mortgage Company and the Title Guaranty Trust Company, identified as Exhibit A-173, nullifying a reversion provision effecting the Lake Forest lot, should have been admitted by the court because such instrument was recorded and appeared in the chain of title to the Lake Forest lot. Case v. Goodman, 156 S.W. 698; McDonald v. Quick, 41 S.W. 208; Garrett v. Wiltse, 161 S.W. 694; Sec. 3427, R.S. 1939. (7) Plaintiff is not barred by alleged laches in failing to bring suit on its note or by its failure to bring prior attachment suit or creditor's bill. Salia v. Pillman, 49 S.W.2d 215; Summers v. Abernathy, 136 S.W. 289; St. Louis Union Trust Co. v. Busch, 145 S.W.2d 426; Davies v. Keiser, 246 S.W. 897; Wauer v. Bank of Pendleton, 65 S.W.2d 167; Wendell v. Ozark Orchard Co., 200 S.W. 747; Dillman v. Davison, 239 S.W. 505; Walther v. Null, 134 S.W. 993; State ex rel. v. Shain, 119 S.W.2d 758; Oldham v. Wright, 85 S.W.2d 483. (8) Plaintiff's action is not barred by Section 1014, R.S. 1939, statute of limitations. Secs. 1278, 1336, R.S. 1939; Zoll v. Soper, 75 Mo. 461; Steele v. Reid, 223 S.W. 881; Hunter v. Hunter, 50 Mo. 445; Rogers v. Brown, 61 Mo. 187; Parish v. Casner, 282 S.W. 392; Branner v. Klaber, 49 S.W.2d 169; Powers v. Grand Lodge, etc., 146 S.W.2d 895.

Robert D. Abbott, Clarence M. Barksdale and Jackson F. Adams for respondent Hilda Brueggeman.

(1) The court's rulings on the points of evidence were correct in each instance. The action is one of the nature in which this court has most always deferred to the chancellor's finding. Carr v. Carroll, 178 S.W.2d 435; Oetting v. Green, 166 S.W.2d 548; Green v. Wilks, 109 S.W.2d 859; Graveman v. Huncker, 139 S.W.2d 494; Fessler v. Fessler, 60 S.W.2d 17; Manahan v. Manahan, 52 S.W.2d 825; Scott v. Hill, 50 S.W.2d 110; Norton v. Norton, 43 S.W.2d 1024; Pfotenhauer v. Ridgway, 271 S.W. 50. (2) The principle is too familiar to require discussion, that equity does not foster the prosecution of stale demands, encourage laches or lend its aid to any but the prompt and vigilant. Price v. Boyle, 229 S.W. 206; Wall v. Beedy, 161 Mo. 625; Casebolt v. Courtney, 195 S.W. 746; Moreman v. Talbott, 55 Mo. 392; Landrum v. Union Bank, 63 Mo. 48; Stevenson v. Saline County, 65 Mo. 425; Bliss v. Prichard, 67 Mo. 181; Gillespie v. Stone, 70 Mo. 505; Reel v. Ewing, 71 Mo. 17; Spurlock v. Sproule, 72 Mo. 503; Kline v. Vogel, 90 Mo. 239; Schradski v. Albright, 93 Mo. 45; Ferguson v. Sodden, 111 Mo. 208; Bobb v. Wolff, 148 Mo. 335; Rutter v. Carothers, 223 Mo. 631; Betzler v. Clark & James, 227 Mo. 375; Meriwether v. Overly, 228 Mo. 218; Swithart v. Mo. Farmers Mut. Co., 138 S.W.2d l.c. 17; Springfield Gas & Electric Co. v. Southern Surety Co., 250 S.W. 78; Morgan County Coal Co. v. Halderman, 254 Mo. 596; Burdett v. May, 100 Mo. 13. (3) Plaintiff's petition and the evidence disclosed its cause of action to be one to subject Hilda Brueggeman's property to the payment of plaintiff's judgment against Carl E. Brueggeman and seeks such relief on the ground of fraud. It is barred by the statute of limitations. Sec. 1014, R.S. 1939; Rogers v. Brown, 61 Mo. 187; Clubine v. Frazier, 139 S.W.2d l.c. 532; Hughes v. Littrell, 75 Mo. 573; Branner v. Klaber, 49 S.W.2d 169; Foster v. Petree, 141 S.W.2d l.c. 135; Brown v. Irving-Pitt Mfg. Co., 316 Mo. 1023; Scott et al. v. Boswell, 136 Mo.App. l.c. 606; Ludwig v. Scott, 65 S.W.2d 1034; Geist v. St. Louis, 156 Mo. l.c. 649; 27 C.J. 764, sec. 654; Gillespie v. Cooper, 37 Neb. 775, 55 N.W. 302; Busby v. Cowan, 107 S.W.2d l.c. 807. (4) The property in litigation was not acquired by a voluntary conveyance. It was acquired as a tenancy by the entirety in the same manner as numerous other properties previously had been held by Mr. and Mrs. Brueggeman, continuously since 1926. It was purchased with the proceeds of such prior tenancies by entirety and of their joint efforts and money; the first tenancy by the entirety being acquired by them in 1926, with the proceeds of property previously vested in Hilda Brueggeman, individually, for a continuous period of nine years. It is not subject to the separate judgment debt of the husband, Carl Brueggeman. Stifel Brewing Co. v. Saxy, 273 Mo. l.c. 161; Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Bleedorn, 132 S.W.2d l.c. 1072, 67 L.R.A. 1918 C; Badger Lbr. & Coal Co. v. Pugsley, 227 Mo.App. 1203; Wharton v. Citizens Bank, 15 S.W.2d 863; Magidson v. Sterm, 148 S.W.2d l.c. 151; Goldburg Plumbing Co. v. Taylor, 209 Mo.App. 98; Kurtz, Inc., v. Field, 223 Mo.App. 270; Mahen v. Ruhr, 293 Mo. 500; Thompson on Real Property, sec. 1824, p. 361; Frost v. Frost, 200 Mo. l.c. 484; Hamrick v. Lasky, 107 S.W.2d 201; Kingman v. Banks, 212 Mo.App. 202, 251 S.W. 449; Schwind v. O'Halloran, 142 S.W.2d l.c. 59; Holmes v. Kansas City, 209 Mo. 513. (5) The plaintiff wholly failed to prove any fraudulent intent in the conveyances attacked or any conditions under which equity will presume fraud. To the contrary, the evidence showed the conduct of Mr. and Mrs. Brueggeman to be the natural and proper consequences of their marital relations, wholly consistent with honesty and a desire to satisfy promptly all of their joint obligations and undertakings. Zehnder v. Stark, 248 Mo. l.c. 50; Cole v. Cole, 231 Mo. l.c. 255; Castorina v. Herrmann, 104 S.W.2d l.c. 302; Black v. Epstein, 221 Mo. 286; Waddingham's Executors v. Loker, 44 Mo. 132; Gruner v. Scholz, 154 Mo. 415; Waite on Fraudulent Conveyances & Creditors' Bills (3 Ed.), sec. 303; Seay v. Hesse, 123 Mo. 450; Furth v. March, 101 Mo.App. 329; Jones v. Hogan, 135 Mo.App. 347; 1st Nat'l Bank v. Link, 275 S.W. 936; Wellman v. Kaiser Inv. Co., 262 Mo. 285; Pew v. Price, 251 Mo. 614; Alkire Grocer Co. v. Ballenger, 137 Mo. 369; Riley v. Vaughn, 116 Mo. 169; Freidel v. Bailey, 44 S.W.2d 9; 27 C.J. 639; Bartlett v. Umfried, 94 Mo. 530; Green v. Wilks, 109 S.W.2d l.c. 865; Graveman v. Huncker, 139 S.W.2d 494; Bank v. Graham, 76 S.W.2d 376; 96 A.L.R. 399; Bank v. Hutton, 224 Mo. l.c. 644; Troll v. Spencer, 238 Mo. l.c. 101; Bartlett v. Heckart, 88 Mo.App. 544; Bump on Fraudulent Conveyances (4 Ed.), secs. 218, 223, 224; Magees v. Kaiser, 121 L.R.A. 623, and note.

Bradley, C. Dalton and Van Osdol, CC., concur.

OPINION

BRADLEY

Plaintiff as a judgment creditor of defendant Carl E. Brueggeman brought this...