Clark v. Rossow, 2
| Decision Date | 12 October 1982 |
| Docket Number | CA-CIV,No. 2,2 |
| Citation | 134 Ariz. 490,657 P.2d 903 |
| Parties | Lorene CLARK, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Harold M. Clark, deceased, and Harold Frizzell, Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. LeRoy J. ROSSOW and Margaret M. Rossow, husband and wife; Consociation for the Ideal Life Church of Minnesota, a corporation, and Adonis Corporation, a Massachusetts corporation, Defendants/Appellees. Harold M. CLARK and Harold Frizzell, Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. LeRoy J. ROSSOW and Margaret M. Rossow, husband and wife, Defendants/Appellees. 4303. |
| Court | Arizona Court of Appeals |
This appeal arises out of two actions in the Superior Court in Pima County. In case No. 174230 the plaintiffs, Harold M. Clark 1 and Harold Frizzell, secured a money judgment for $27,159.73 against the defendants LeRoy J. Rossow and Margaret M. Rossow, husband and wife. This judgment was entered October 10, 1980, and was not appealed. The judgment creditors, appellants here, attempted to collect the judgment by garnishment proceedings in case No. 174230 and by a separate action, No. 191621, in which they alleged that the judgment debtors, Rossow, the appellees here, had made a fraudulent conveyance to the appellees Consociation For the Ideal Life Church of Minnesota and Adonis Corporation. They sought to have that conveyance set aside so they could execute on that real property in Pima County.
The appellees responded in the earlier case with a motion to have the judgment declared void. Since Mr. Rossow had been adjudged bankrupt in Minnesota, the judgment was discharged. That motion was granted. On September 1, 1981, the trial court entered an order declaring the judgment null, void and of no force or effect as to both Mr. and Mrs. Rossow.
In case No. 191621 the appellees moved for summary judgment on the theory that the prior judgment was void. Since the fraudulent conveyance complaint is predicated on an obligation claimed to be owing from the appellees Rossow to the appellants (the judgment in No. 174230) and there is no such obligation, the trial court properly dismissed the complaint. The fraudulent conveyance act, A.R.S. § 44-1001, et seq. does not create a new claim. If a claim does not exist there is no remedy. Jorden v. Ball, 357 Mass. 468, 258 N.E.2d 736 (1970); Laidley v. Heigho, 326 F.2d 592 (9th Cir.1963). The appellees Rossow were no longer creditors of the appellants. Only a creditor, that is, one having a claim, A.R.S....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Moore v. Browning
...903 (1952); Flath v. Neal, 63 Ariz. 68, 159 P.2d 617 (1945); Ollason v. Glasscock, 26 Ariz. 193, 224 P. 284 (1924); Clark v. Rossow, 134 Ariz. 490, 657 P.2d 903 (App.1982); Wallin v. Scottsdale Plumbing Co., 27 Ariz.App. 591, 557 P.2d 190 (1976); Zellerbach Paper Co. v. Valley Nat'l Bank, 1......
-
Transamerica Ins. Co. v. Trout
...on a recent appellate opinion which held that the Uniform Fraudulent Conveyance Act does not create a new claim, Clark v. Rossow, 134 Ariz. 490, 657 P.2d 903 (App.1982), argues that the discharge in bankruptcy of St. John's underlying debt to Transamerica destroyed Transamerica's status as ......
-
Hullett v. Cousin
..."has a long history." Id. The rationale is that the UFTA is remedial; it does not create new claims. Clark v. Rossow, 134 Ariz. 490, 491, 657 P.2d 903, 904 (App.1982) ("The fraudulent conveyance act, A.R.S. § 44-1001, et seq., does not create a new claim. If a claim does not exist there is ......
-
Anderson v. Chandler
...status as such, and if a party is no longer a creditor it can not bring claim against a transferee under the UFTA. Clark v. Rossow, 134 Ariz. 490, 657 P.2d 903 (App. 1982). In the Motion to Dismiss Counts 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7, it was well established that Xavier's debt to Plaintiffs was discha......