Criss v. Criss.
| Decision Date | 11 May 1909 |
| Citation | 65 W.Va. 683 |
| Parties | Criss v. Criss. |
| Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
Fraudulent Conveyances What Constitutes Imaginary Liability.
A conveyance of land to be held in trust for a third person, the grantee and beneficiary intending by putting it in the hands of the grantee, to shield it from imaginary liability which the beneficiary feared might be attempted to be asserted, based on forged papers which the parties feared were in existence, when in fact there were no such papers, and no such liability, and the beneficiary owed no debts, will not be held void under the statute avoiding deeds made with intent to defraud creditors, and the trust will be enforced in equity, (p. 686.)
Appeal from Circuit Court, Harrison County. Bill by Anna Criss against Michael Criss. Decree for defendant, and complainant appeals.
Reversed.
John Bassel and Haze Morgan, for appellant. L. C. Chile and Dabney C. Lee, for appellee.
Anna Criss filed her bill in equity in the circuit court of Harrison county against Michael Criss, and her bill was dismissed on demurrer, and she appeals.
The bill states that Anna Criss was owner of a lot on Main street in the city of Clarksburg, and that she conveyed it to Hezekiah F. Criss; and that later in consideration of some of the purchase money which he had not paid her and of further indebtedness of him to her, Hezekiah F. Criss conveyed to Howard P. Criss, a son of Anna Criss, a certain lot on Monticello avenue and Maude street in Clarksburg, on which was a dwelling house, which was occupied by the said Anna Criss and her family. That the conveyance by Hezekiah F. Criss of said lot to Howard P. Criss was in trust for the use and benefit of his mother, Anna Criss, and that Howard P. Criss accepted the said conveyance in trust for his mother, she having paid the whole consideration therefor; that later, as Howard P. Cris was about to leave home and settle in another state, by agreement of the parties said lot was conveyed by Howard P. Criss to another son of Anna Criss, Michael Criss, then a single man living on the said lot with his mother and other members of the family; that Michael Criss paid nothing whatever for the conveyance to him of said lot, and that it was a distinct agreement between Anna Criss and Howard Criss and Michael Criss that Michael Criss should hold the said lot in trust for the sole use and benefit of his mother, Anna Criss, and that the family should continue to reside in the house on said lot. The bill further states that Anna Criss in 1905, through the instrumentality of Michael Criss, was incarcerated in the West Virginia Hospital for the Insane at Weston, but remained therein a short time only until she was taken out of the hospital upon a bond given by one of her sons, the, said Michael Criss refusing to bail her out and using every means at his command to keep her in the said hospital, even employing counsel to appear before the board of directors of said hospital to advocate her return to it; but that the plaintiff was soon discharged from said institution as cured, having in fact never been unsound in mind, although the action of the defendant was such shortly preceding her commitment to the hospital, when she demanded of him a deed for the lot, as almost to drive her to distraction. The bill further states that Michael Criss never set up any claim to the Monticello avenue property, and does not yet, except by way of a baseless, trumped-up and untrue alleged set-off of $4,000 for keeping the family, until the plaintiff was committed to the insane asylum, when assuming that the plaintiff had become civilly dead for the remainder of her life, and that defendant's brothers and sisters would not litigate with him the right to the property, he, Michael Criss, then married, gave up the property which he had rented in another part of the county and took possession, with his family, of the residence in controversy, and of the plaintiffs personal property, and broke up the plaintiff's home, driving her sons, one then fifteen years of age, another twenty years of age, and a daughter then seventeen years of age, out of their life long home and compelling them to go upon the streets among strangers, after giving the daughter written notice to vacate the property, and that since then the defendant has occupied the property, for a period of about one year be fore the bringing of this snit. The bill further states that defendant, Michael Criss, has refused to convey the said property to the plaintiff, though often requested to do so, and that she has been forced to live upon the charity of other children, when her own property, if she could have it, would afford her home and support. The bill further states that the husband of Anna Criss had been engaged in the saloon business and broke up, and that she had engaged in business herself and prospered therein, and did not owe a dollar at the time she purchased the Monticello avenue property from Hezekiah F. Criss, but that she was informed and believed until a little while before the institution of this suit, that her name had been forged to securities, orders and other paper, the payment of which might be attempted to be enforced against any property she might acquire in her own name, and to avoid the expense and annoyance of being obliged to defend her property from supposed liabilities which she had never incurred, and for that reason alone, she had taken the conveyance of said property in the name of her son, Howard P. Criss, and afterwards for the same reason, and for that reason alone, had the property conveyed to her son Michael Criss, the defend ant, her purpose being only to let the legal title remain outstanding until any judgments against her or any securities with her name forged might expire by limitation, when it was her purpose to take the legal title to herself, of which purpose the defendant well knew. The bill further states that at the time of the conveyance by Hezekiah F. Criss to Howard P. Criss, and at the time of the conveyance by Howard P. Criss to Michael Criss, the plaintiff, Anna Criss, had no creditor or outstanding obligation owing by her, and that she was innocent of any intent to hinder, delay or defraud creditors; and that about the time of the institution of this suit she for the first time caused investigation to be made of said supposed forgeries with the result that she was informed that none such ever existed that would have been enforceable against said property, even had she taken the conveyance directly in her own name instead of that of her son. The bill prayed that the defendant be compelled to convey the said Monticello...
To continue reading
Request your trial