Hoeller v. Haffner

• Decision Date: 30 March 1900
• Parties: HOELLER v. HAFFNER et al.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

56 S.W. 312

155 Mo. 589

HOELLER v. HAFFNER et al.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 1.

March 30, 1900.

FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCES—HUSBAND AND WIFE — CONVEYANCE TO WIFE — HUSBAND'S CREDITORS—EVIDENCE—EQUITY PRACTICE— APPEAL.

1. On appeal in equity cases, the appellate court is not bound by the findings of fact of the trial court, but will review the evidence.

2. Defendant purchased land for $500, taking the title in his wife's name, and subsequently paid $2,800 for improvements erected thereon. Defendant, his wife, and her mother testified that the $500 was a gift to the wife from the mother; that to pay for the improvements the mother loaned the daughter $1,200; and that the daughter and her husband borrowed $1,000 on the property. Defendant was insolvent before and during the period of these transactions, but had an income of $1,000 per year, and, aside from the support of his family during that time, he paid about $2,000 indebtedness. The mother was shown to have had $2,050 in cash, and an income of $150 per month. Held, that the evidence showed that the mother, and not the husband, made the payments, and that the title was not taken in the wife's name to defraud creditors; and this evidence was not overcome by the fact that the mother's bank account did not show that she had drawn on it on the dates of the loans, and that the receipts from the loans appeared to be newly made, though dated in 1892, and that the $500 given to the daughter was in silver and paper money, while the $500 paid for the land by defendant was principally gold.

Appeal from circuit court, Gasconade county; R. Steele Ryors, Special Judge.

Bill by Peter Hoeller against Julius Haffner and others. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendants Julius Haffner and wife appeal Reversed.

This is a proceeding in equity to devest the title to lots 18, 20, 22, and 24, on West Fifth street, in the town of Hermann, out of the defendant Martha Haffner, wife of Julius Haffner, and vest it in the plaintiff. The facts developed on the trial are these: Julius Haffner became indebted to the plaintiff prior to March, 1892, and on the 13th of April, 1896, he obtained judgment against Julius Haffner, in the circuit court of Gasconade county, for $703.95, and caused the execution issued thereon to be levied by the sheriff on this property, and at the execution sale he became the purchaser thereof for $500. Then he instituted this action against Julius Haffner and Martha his wife, alleging that the property belonged to Julius, and that the title thereto had been put in the name of Martha to defraud his creditors, and that Julius had since made permanent and valuable improvements thereon, and therefore he asked to have the title devested out of them and vested in him. The answer of Julius is a general denial. Martha Haffner answered separately, and claimed that she purchased the property on the 28th of March, 1892, with her separate money and means which came to her by gift during coverture, and which money had never been reduced to possession by her husband by her assent in writing, and that the improvements were made on the property by her with money she borrowed from other persons, and for which she is still indebted. Anna M. Rhodius, the mother of Mrs. Haffner, was made a party defendant upon her own motion, and filed an answer in which she set up that the property was purchased by her daughter with $500 cash, which she gave to her daughter; that afterwards her daughter built a dwelling house on the land, and to assist her in so doing she loaned her daughter $600 on the 4th of October, 1892, and a further sum of $600 on the 1st of November, 1892, which was so applied; that on the 28th of November, 1892, her daughter borrowed $1,000 from the Mutual Saving Fund Association of Hermann, and gave her note therefor, secured by deed of trust on this property, her husband, Julius, joining therein, and that on the 28th of March, 1895, she (Mrs. Rhodius) purchased the note and mortgage from that association, and still holds it, and that it is unpaid; that she made the gift and loans and purchased the note and mortgage because she is a widow, with minor children, engaged in the hotel business, and she intended to provide a home for her daughter, herself, and her other children in case she quit the hotel business; and therefore she prays that her interests in the property be protected. The reply to the separate answers is a general denial.

The plaintiff proved by Robert Walker, an attorney at law, that in 1888 the defendant Julius, who is a doctor, came to Hermann, and bought Dr. Freyman's practice, and has practiced medicine there ever since; that he had a horse, buggy, some household furniture, something of a library, and a good assortment of drugs; that he paid his current bills promptly, but was insolvent, and that witness had been unable to collect anything from him on account of some notes that had been sent him for collection; that the property in question, with the improvements, is worth about $2,000. Over the objection of the defendants, this witness was permitted to testify that Dr. Haffner's practice was worth $1,000 a year, at least. The plaintiff then showed by the records from the probate court that letters of administration were refused Mrs. Rhodius on her husband's estate, on the 4th of August, 1890. Charles Hansen testified that he sold the land to Dr. Haffner for $450; that Dr. Haffner handed the money to Mr. Wensel, and he handed it to him (Hansen); that he did not remember whether the deed was made to Dr. Haffner or to his wife. Albert Schubert, a carpenter and builder, testified that he built the dwelling house; that he started in October, 1892, and finished it in the spring of 1893; that he made a verbal contract with Dr. Haffner to build the house for $2,100; that the doctor paid him in installments as the work progressed; that there was a stable on the premises worth $75, a cistern worth $20 to $30, a cellar worth $30 to $40, and that the painting of the house would cost $75 to $80; that, in his opinion, the whole improvements on the place would cost about $2,600 to $2,800. The plaintiff then introduced in evidence the deed from Charles Hansen to Martha Haffner, dated March 28, 1892, and recorded October 5, 1892. The defendants then admitted the indebtedness of Dr. Haffner to the plaintiff, contracted long prior to the purchase of this property, and based on a note dated January 1, 1887, the judgment and sale under the execution, "and that on and before March 25, 1892, said Julius Haffner was and yet is insolvent," but in making these admissions denied that the doctor had any right, title, or interest in the property. This was the whole of plaintiff's case.

The testimony adduced by defendants established these facts: (1) Dr. Haffner located at Hermann about 1888. He bought Dr. Freyman's practice for $250, and borrowed that sum from the bank to pay for it. He could not pay the note at maturity, but, upon its renewal, paid it when it fell due. He had only eight or ten dollars in money, a crippled horse, and some household furniture when he reached Hermann. He was then a married man, with at least one son. Some time before the spring of 1890 his wife secured a divorce from him, and he had to pay her $500 alimony, and $50 costs and fees. He also paid $200 debts his wife had contracted in Jefferson City. He also had to buy a horse and cart, for which he paid $140. He helped to support his mother and sister, contributing thereto from $150 to $250 a year. His son was studying medicine in St. Louis, and between 1888 and 1892 he paid for him between $1,200 and $1,500. In the spring of 1890 he married Martha Haffner, who was at the time of her marriage suffering with an ovarian tumor, which grew worse, and upon the advice of Dr. Bauer, of St. Louis, she was operated upon in a hospital in St. Louis. This, and the expense incident thereto, cost him about $600. He stated that he had a good practice, but did not state, and was not asked to state, how much it amounted to annually. He testified that he had no money with which to buy the land in controversy or to construct the improvements thereon, but that the $2,700 that was expended for that purpose consisted of $500 that his wife's mother gave his wife, $1,200 which she loaned his wife, and $1,000 borrowed by his wife from the Mutual Saving Fund Association, which, together with some work that was done on the place by persons who were indebted to him and who could not pay him in any other way, brought up the...