Conroy v. Shott, 16489.
Decision Date | 08 July 1966 |
Docket Number | No. 16489.,16489. |
Citation | 363 F.2d 90 |
Parties | Thomas A. CONROY, Trustee in Bankruptcy for Leslie D. Stickler, Bankrupt, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Edgar I. SHOTT, Jr., Defendant-Appellant. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
James G. Andrews, Jr., Cincinnati, Ohio, for appellant.
S. Arthur Spiegel, Cincinnati, Ohio, J. Vincent Aug, Cincinnati, Ohio, on brief, for appellee.
Before WEICK, Chief Judge, and PHILLIPS and EDWARDS, Circuit Judges.
This is an appeal from the judgment of the district court which granted the motion of plaintiff-appellee for summary judgment, overruled the motion of defendant-appellant for summary judgment, and entered judgment against defendant-appellant for $1,363,410.00 with interest and costs.
Plaintiff-appellee, Thomas A. Conroy, is the trustee in bankruptcy for Leslie D. Stickler, referred to herein as "bankrupt." The bankrupt inaugurated a scheme wherein he would borrow a sum of money from A, then borrow from B to repay A, borrow from C to repay B and so on. The inducement was a high rate of interest on a short term. This is referred to as a "Ponzi" type scheme. See Cunningham, Trustee of Ponzi v. Brown, 265 U.S. 1, 44 S.Ct. 424, 68 L.Ed. 873.
Defendant-appellant, Edgar I. Shott, Jr., referred to herein as "defendant," was a lender to the bankrupt. Both bankrupt and defendant were attorneys and had been friends since childhood. Millions of dollars were involved in the scheme and it appears that some 120 or more people made loans to the bankrupt in widely varying amounts, aggregating $3,309,462.05.
The trustee sued the defendant to recover a cumulative total of $1,343,410.00, representing some 600 transactions between the defendant and the bankrupt. The action was filed on March 20, 1963, more than two years after the January 18, 1961, adjudication of bankruptcy. The action is mantained under authority of 11 U.S.C. § 110(e) (1), (Section 70 (e) (1) of the Federal Bankruptcy Act.)1
The memorandum opinion and order of the district judge states that the defendant received $342,900 more from the bankrupt than he loaned. The district judge concluded if the "repayments" to defendant were void or voidable under Ohio statutes, it must be under the provisions of Sections 1335.02, 1313.56 and 1313.57 of the Ohio Revised Code.
Section 1335.02 provided:2
"Every gift, grant, or conveyance of lands, tenements, hereditaments, rents, goods, or chattels, * * * made or obtained with intent to defraud creditors of their just and lawful debts or damages, or to defraud or to deceive the persons purchasing such lands, tenements, hereditaments, rents, goods, or chattels, is void."
The second of these statutes (O.R.C. § 1313.56) provides for voidability where there has been an intent to establish preference among or to defraud creditors. The third (O.R.C. § 1313.57) limits the application of the preceding section to situations where the transferee "knew of such fraudulent intent on the part of such debtor."
Defendant contends that § 1335.02 does not apply because it is directed only toward gifts; and that Sections 1313.56 and 1313.57 would not apply in the absence of knowledge on the part of the defendant of the fraudulent intent of the bankrupt and that such knowledge is not established in the present case.
On this question, the district judge said:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Independent Clearing House Co.
...to hinder, delay, or defraud can never be established in a motion for summary judgment, and refrain from doing so. Cf. Conroy v. Shott, 363 F.2d 90, 91 (6th Cir. 1966) (in a "Ponzi" scheme "the question of intent to defraud is not debatable"); Guy v. Abdulla, 57 F.R.D. 14, 17 & n. 2 (N.D. O......
-
In re Taubman, Bankruptcy No. 3-89-01642
...aff'd in relevant part, 62 B.R. 118 (D.Utah 1986). See Cunningham v. Brown, 265 U.S. 1, 44 S.Ct. 424, 68 L.Ed. 873 (1924); Conroy v. Shott, 363 F.2d 90 (6th Cir.1966), cert. denied, 385 U.S. 969, 87 S.Ct. 501, 17 L.Ed.2d 433 (1966). Typically, investors are promised high rates of return, In......
-
Tabor v. Davis (In re Davis)
...v. Cohmad Sec. Corp. (In re Bernard L. Madoff Inv. Secs. LLC), 454 B.R. 317, 330 (Bankr. E.D. N.Y. 2011); Conroy v. Shott (In re Stickler), 363 F.2d 90, 92 (6th Cir. 1966). As an initial matter, "whether a conveyance is fraudulent ... is determined by referenceto the intent of the debtor-tr......
-
William F. Perkins, in His Capacity of Int'l Mgmt. Assocs., LLC v. Lehman Bros., Inc. (In re Int'l Mgmt. Assocs., LLC)
...scheme was made with actual fraudulent intent.The doctrine has its origins in a 1966 decision of the Sixth Circuit in Conroy v. Shott , 363 F.2d 90 (6th Cir. 1966), and a 1987 en banc ruling of the United States District Court for the District of Utah in Merrill v. Abbott (In re Independent......
-
Article
...consideration for his $1,576 profit. See id. at 973. More than forty years elapsed between Eby and the next profits case, Conroy v. Shott, 363 F.2d 90 (6th Cir. 1966), an action by a trustee under an Ohio actual fraudulent conveyance statute. The defendant had made loans to a Ponzi operator......
-
THE GOOD FAITH INQUIRY: WHAT ABOUT THE WORKER ANTS?
...U.S.C. [section] 548(a)(1)(B). (40.) The Ponzi scheme "presumption" of actual intent to defraud creditors is derived from Conwy v. Shott, 363 F.2d 90 (6th Cir. 1966) and Merrill v. Abbott (In re Indep. Clearing House Co.), 77 B.R. 843 (Bankr. D. Utah 1987), which are two of the earliest dec......
-
Article
...at 771; Picard v. Greiff (In re Bernard L. Madoff Inv. Secs., LLC), 476 B.R. 715, 729 (S.D.N.Y. 2012). Conroy v. Shott (In re Stickler), 363 F.2d 90 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 385 U.S. 969 (1966) Leslie Stickler's Ponzi scheme involved high interest loans from individuals. Edgar Shott made n......