Haas v. Haas
| Decision Date | 20 February 1958 |
| Docket Number | 1838.,Civ. A. No. 1757,1808,1794 |
| Citation | 165 F. Supp. 701 |
| Parties | Arle E. HAAS, Plaintiff, v. Leon V. HAAS, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Delaware |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Herman Cohen, of Cohen & Cohen, Wilmington, Del., for plaintiff.
Vincent A. Theisen, of Logan, Marvel, Boggs & Theisen, Joseph H. Flanzer, L. Robert Hopkins, and John P. Daley, Wilmington, Del., for defendant.
This matter is a confused and confusing consolidation, by agreement, of four actions—two being instituted in this Court by the husband and two instituted in Delaware Courts by the wife and removed to this Court. The jurisdiction of each is based on diversity of citizenship. The wife, Arle E. Haas, will be referred to herein as "plaintiff" and Leon V. Haas as "defendant". The parties, Leon V. Haas and Arle E. Haas, were respectively husband and wife living in or near Wilmington, Delaware. Trouble between them of a very serious nature developed about 1950 and culminated in a divorce in Little Rock, Arkansas on January 25, 1955, the validity of which is not here in issue. All four cases involve the respective claims of the parties to the property that the parties formerly owned as tenants by the entirety.
Before taking up the respective claims of the parties it seems advisable to state the general surroundings from which the claims arise and in which the contentions of the parties appear, although this course may be somewhat repetitious of the facts connected with the various claims.
The husband, Leon V. Haas, was a retired executive in comfortable circumstances. They sold a house they owned as tenants by the entirety to one Budner taking a mortgage as part consideration. This mortgage appears later in this statement of facts. They built another house on property owned by them as an estate by the entireties and in which they lived. On the same premises was located another building or log cabin for summer use but without heat, plumbing or other conveniences sufficient for use as a dwelling. On these premises they placed a mortgage with Equitable Trust Company.
During this time they maintained one or more checking accounts in their joint names and of substantial nature. About this time the Budners paid off some $4,000 or $5,000 on the mortgage held by Mr. and Mrs. Haas. Being unable to make this payment applicable to their own mortgage given by them, the money was placed in a separate account allegedly for the purpose of making payment on their own mortgage when that would become possible.
One other fact is of importance. The parties owned at least one security being 200 shares of General Motors stock registered in the name of Leon V. Haas and Arle E. Haas with right of survivorship. This stock was pledged with Equitable Trust Company as security for a loan, the wife, Arle E. Hass, signing the certificate in blank and this fact has importance in the subsequent difficulties. The facts and conclusions as to this stock, constituting one of the larger claims of the plaintiff, will be hereafter considered with reference to the claims designated as 3(h), (i), (j) and (k).
About November 24, 1950 the husband left the house and largely depleted the bank accounts which had been in their joint names, both the individual accounts and that which represented the payment on the Budner mortgage. It is in evidence that the wife, too, had withdrawn two smaller sums for her own use and protection.
At or about the time the husband left the house he instituted a suit for divorce in the Superior Court of the State of Delaware. This suit was contested by the wife and after considerable delay was eventually denied and the wife was allowed her attorney's fee and some $400 for expert medical testimony. These allowances have some pertinency in view of her claims as hereinafter elaborated.
After the husband left the house, with every indication of permanancy of removal, the wife stayed in the larger house but being unable to maintain herself there rented the larger house. She then from her own funds, or funds borrowed for the purpose, installed heat, plumbing and other necessities in the smaller summer house and moved there and has since lived there. She took with her what furniture she desired, sold a small quantity and gave away a few pieces.
Shortly after the divorce case of the husband had been instituted in Delaware the wife brought non-support proceedings in the Family Court of the State of Delaware. The non-support action was not proceeded with owing to an agreement entered into between the counsel for both parties and evidenced by a letter from the counsel for the husband addressed to counsel for the wife. As this agreement covers several of the claims of the wife and counter contentions of the husband, it is here set out in extenso.
About this time the Budners, who had purchased their house from Leon and Arle Haas, made certain stipulated annual payments on account of their mortgage and eventually desired to pay off the balance. Largely because of the inability of the present plaintiff and defendant to agree upon any basis whatever, the payments of the Budners were received by counsel for the parties and deposited in an "escrow fund" in the names of the counsel for both parties. From this fund certain agreed amounts were paid and from this escrow fund there was also paid the sums agreed to be paid to the wife under the support agreement after the fund deposited by the defendant had been exhausted. The payments specified in the agreement for support continued to be paid from the "escrow fund" until May 1953 when Mrs. Haas was of the opinion that what she considered was her own half of the "escrow fund" was being depleted and that she was in effect paying her support from her own money and she thereupon refused to receive any more payments from the "escrow fund". The parties were unable to agree as to any division or disposition of the balance of this fund, then amounting to $25,882.95 and this sum was eventually paid into this Court and now remains in the Registry of this Court for equitable disposition in view of the varying claims.
On January 25, 1955, the husband having gone to Arkansas, a decree of divorce was granted on his application. No question is here raised as to the validity of that divorce.
The date of the Arkansas divorce, January 25, 1955, is an important date both in considering the change of interest of the parties with regard to the title to the real estate formerly held by them as tenants by the entirety and as fixing a date for the determination of some of the many claims made by the parties.
Arle E. Haas brought two actions in the Delaware Courts, (a) an action of sequestration in the Court of Chancery and (b) an action of foreign attachment. The purpose of each was to obtain a settlement of her claim against Leon V. Haas. Both actions were removed by the defendant, Leon V. Haas, and became respectively Civil Action No. 1794 and Civil Action No. 1808.
Leon V. Haas commenced an action in this Court (Civil Action No. 1757) against Arle E. Haas and against Clair J. Killoran and Thomas Herlihy, Jr., Trustees of the "Escrow Fund", hereinbefore mentioned, seeking the partition of the real estate formerly held by Leon V. Haas and Arle E. Haas as tenants by the entirety while they were married and also seeking a division of the escrow fund now paid into this Court.
Leon V. Haas also brought an action in this Court seeking an accounting by Arle E. Haas for certain rents received by her and of certain furniture retained by her.
These are the four actions which on a pretrial proceeding were consolidated for hearing.
From this tangled skein of facts the claims of the parties are made as herein set out and will be considered in their order.
The wife claims:
To continue reading
Request your trial
- United States v. Coumantaros
-
Asker v. Asker
...v. Branstetter, 36 N.C.App. 532, 535-536, 245 S.E.2d 87 (1978). Delaware law seems to be to the same effect. See Haas v. Haas, 165 F.Supp. 701, 710 (D.Del., 1958).4 We similarly decline to speculate on the barren record before us concerning any possible res judicata effect of the judgment e......