Braecklein v. McNamara

• Decision Date: 15 January 1925
• Docket Number: 55.
• Citation: 127 A. 497,147 Md. 17
• Parties: BRAECKLEIN ET UX. v. McNAMARA ET AL.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

127 A. 497

147 Md. 17

BRAECKLEIN ET UX. v. McNAMARA ET AL.

No. 55.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

January 15, 1925

Appeal from Circuit Court No. 2 of Baltimore City; Walter I Dawkins, Judge.

"To be officially reported."

Suit by James J. McNamara and another against Alfred H. Braecklein and wife. Decree for plaintiffs, and defendants appeal. Reversed, and bill dismissed.

Argued before PATTISON, URNER, ADKINS, OFFUTT, BOND, and PARKE, JJ.

George Arnold Frick, of Baltimore, for appellants.

Henry M. Siegel, of Baltimore (James J. McNamara, of Baltimore, on the brief), for appellees.

URNER J.

The appellees are judgment creditors of Dr. Alfred H. Braecklein one of the appellants, and have obtained a decree avoiding as to their claims certain deeds by which the title to a house and lot in Baltimore, previously owned by the debtor, was vested in himself and his wife, the other appellant, as tenants by the entireties. The suit was defended on the ground that the transfer of the title was made in pursuance and consideration of an antenuptial agreement. It is to be determined on this appeal whether the defense should be sustained on the evidence in the record.

The marriage of the appellants occurred on June 7, 1922. By a deed dated May 27, 1922, Dr. Braecklein conveyed his home property to William D. O'Keefe and wife, who immediately conveyed it to both of the appellants, as tenants by the entireties, by a deed which was postdated June 12, 1922, with a view to having it take effect after they were married. The first deed was recorded on June 3, and the second on June 15 1922. Each of the deeds recited that it was executed in consideration of $5 and "other good and valuable considerations." The judgments of the appellees were procured in suits brought after the execution of the deeds.

It was testified by Isaac T. Parks, Esq., of the Baltimore bar, by whom the deeds were prepared, that he was visited previously by Dr. Braecklein, who said he was about to be married and had "a piece of property" which he had agreed with his prospective wife to have conveyed to them as tenants by the entireties before the wedding. In answer to a question as to what was the real consideration for the deeds, Mr. Parks said:

"The doctor told me he had agreed as a part of the marriage contract with his wife to convey this property."

Dr. Braecklein testified to the effect that about the first of March, 1922, when he became engaged to his present wife, he entered into a verbal agreement with her that in consideration of their marriage she should have the property which is now in litigation. For that consideration alone, he said, the deeds were executed. He owned at that time other real estate, which he sold in November, 1922, for approximately $1,000. According to his testimony he did not believe, at the time of the conveyances in question, that he was indebted to either of the appellees, but regarded each of them as his debtor for professional services which he had rendered.

Mrs. Braecklein, in her testimony, said it was agreed between Dr. Braecklein and herself, about the first of March, 1922, that she was to have his dwelling house in consideration of their marriage, and she further stated that she had no knowledge of his being indebted at the time of the agreement of conveyance, but was informed by him to the contrary.

Anton Braecklein, a brother of the doctor, testified that he was present at an interview between the appellants, prior to their marriage, in which the agreement for the wife to have the home property of the husband was effected. The fact of such an agreement is proved also by the testimony of Mrs. Breitenocher, an aunt of Mrs. Braecklein. It was agreed at the trial that, if Mrs. O'Keefe were present, she would testify that she and her husband accepted from Dr. Braecklein a deed for the property involved in this suit, and conveyed it to the appellants as tenants by the entireties "in pursuance of a marriage contract." Mr. O'Keefe was called as a witness, and stated:

"The only thing I know about the property is the fact that Mrs. Braecklein called my wife--they were sisters--and asked me if we wouldn't go to Mr. Parks' office located in the Law Building and sign the deed of a piece of property located on Charles street, and in return deed the property back to Mr. and Mrs. Braecklein after they became man and wife. We signed both papers at the same time."

No evidence was offered by the plaintiff in opposition to the testimony of ...