In re Roberts, B-39-57
| Decision Date | 11 September 1959 |
| Docket Number | B-40-57.,No. B-39-57,B-39-57 |
| Citation | 176 F. Supp. 361 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of North Carolina |
| Parties | In the Matter of Clarence Paul ROBERTS, Bankrupt. In the Matter of Becky Mangum ROBERTS, Bankrupt. |
John T. Manning and C. Wallace Vickers, Durham, N. C., for Clarence Paul Roberts and Becky Mangum Roberts, petitioners.
W. Harold Edwards, Chapel Hill, N. C., for Henry V. Dick and Co., Incorporated, respondent.
This matter is before the court on the petition of Clarence Paul Roberts and Becky Mangum Roberts, bankrupts, for review of an order of the referee in bankruptcy, dated March 27, 1958, which denied the discharge of the bankrupts.
On November 6, 1957, Clarence Paul Roberts and Becky Mangum Roberts filed separate voluntary petitions for bankruptcy. Separate adjudications were made on the same date.
The bankrupts are husband and wife. The two cases were consolidated for administration, and have been handled by the same trustee.
On April 16, 1958, Henry V. Dick and Company, Incorporated, a creditor, timely filed objections to the discharge of the bankrupts. The first specification objected to the discharge under Section 14, sub. c(2) of the Bankruptcy Act (11 U. S.C.A. § 32, sub. c(2)) for failure to keep adequate records, and the second specification objected to the discharge under Section 14, sub. c(4) of the Bankruptcy Act (11 U.S.C.A. § 32, sub. c(4)) for that, within the twelve month period immediately preceding the filing of the petions, the bankrupts, with intent to hinder, delay and defraud their creditors, transferred all their real estate without consideration.
The referee, after hearing, made certain findings of fact and conclusions of law, which are contained in the order denying the discharge. The order concluded that the evidence was insufficient to establish that the bankrupts had failed to keep proper records and books, but did establish that the bankrupts had, within twelve months prior to the bankruptcy, transferred their property with the intent to hinder, delay and defraud their creditors, and both bankrupts were denied their discharge.
Viewing the record as a whole, it fairly appears that Clarence Paul Roberts, who was in the contracting business, and his wife, Becky Mangum Roberts, the bankrupts, commenced experiencing financial difficulties a year or two before the bankruptcy. These difficulties grew steadily worse, and resulted in their placing a mortgage on all their real estate. During the months of May and June of 1957, about six months prior to the bankruptcy, there were some twenty or twenty-five law suits filed against the bankrupts. While these law suits were pending, and with the possibility of a judgment being rendered in one or more of them at any moment, the bankrupts conveyed to Bobby R. Roberts and his wife, Ruby M. Roberts, the brother and sister-in-law of the bankrupt, Clarence Paul Roberts, several tracts of property which were held by the bankrupts by the entirety. The conveyances constituted all the real estate owned by the bankrupts at that time.
There was no consideration for the conveyances. However, the various deeds contained documentary stamps which indicated a value of several thousand dollars in excess of the existing mortgages. Further, the bankrupt, Clarence Paul Roberts, testified that the property was sold to his brother with the understanding that the property was to be resold, after which he and his wife were to receive the sum of $6,000. While it definitely appears that the property had a value in excess of the mortgages, it is difficult, by reason of the circumstances under which the property was conveyed and the relationship of the parties, to determine the equity of the bankrupts with any degree of certainty.
The bankrupts insisted that all the property was in the process of being foreclosed at the time of the conveyances,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Weinbaum
...v. Mann, 339 F.2d 547 (5th Cir. 1965); Weinberg v. Rubiner, 239 F.2d 458 (6th Cir. 1956); In re Vecchione, supra; In re Roberts, 176 F.Supp. 361 (D.C.N.C.1959), vacated, 275 F.2d 943 (4th Cir. 1960). Finally, this court agrees with Judge Parente's holding that even if the transfer had taken......
-
In re Tabibian
...bankrupt to "satisfactorily explain" the questioned transactions. McMullin v. Todd, 10 Cir., 1955, 228 F.2d 139, 142; In re Roberts, D.C.M.D.N. Car.1959, 176 F.Supp. 361. It is true that a discharge is a privilege granted the honest debtor and not a right accorded to all bankrupts. In weigh......