Johnson v. Czeikus
| Decision Date | 27 November 1934 |
| Citation | 193 N.E. 13,288 Mass. 428 |
| Parties | JOHNSON v. CZEIKUS et al. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Bill in equity by Oliver A. Johnson against Michael T. Czeikus and others, and counterclaim by defendants. From a final decree for plaintiff and dismissing the counterclaim, defendants appeal.
Affirmed.
Appeal from Superior Court, Suffolk County; Whiting, Judge.
Morton M. Lewis, of Boston, for appellants.
Warner, Stackpole & Bradlee, of Boston (R. J. Cotter, G. B. Rowell, and G. P. VanArkel, all of Boston, of counsel), for appellee.
This is a bill in equity brought by the plaintiff as holder of three notes given by the defendants Michael T. Czeikus and Elizabeth G. Czeikus (herein called the principal defendants) to Samuel W. Johnson, the plaintiff's predecessor in title. It is alleged in the bill that each note was in the sum of $4,000 and was secured by a mortgage upon certain real estate in Boston. Each note provided for quarterly payments of not less than $40 with interest at 7 per cent. per annum. The bill further alleges that payments were made on the notes to November 1, 1932; that on February 8, 1933, payments being in default, the plaintiff entered on the several premises for the purpose of foreclosing the mortgages; that the foreclosures left a deficiency on each note. The bill is brought to reach and apply certain other property of the principal defendants which had been conveyed by them to their son, the defendant Vito M. Czeikus. These conveyances, the bill alleges, were made without consideration and for the purpose of preventing the payment of any deficiencies to which the plaintiff might be entitled in connection with the foreclosure of the mortgages.
It was alleged in the answer of the principal defendants that the property subject to mortgage was conveyed to one Justinas Andrusiunas and his wife on August 20, 1927; that said defendants believed that the mortgages had been satisfied in full and had no knowledge of the foreclosure until the bringing of the bill; that the purchaser at the sale was merely a ‘straw’ for the plaintiff; and that the consideration received at the foreclosure sale was inadequate. The answer was later amended and alleged that after the sale to Andrusiunas and his wife a binding agreement was entered into between Samuel W. Johnson, the plaintiff's predecessor in title, and Andrusiunas and his wife whereby the terms of the indebtedness due under the mortgages were changed to the detriment of the defendants. The plaintiff denied that any such agreement had been made.
‘It was agreed at the trial that the property sought to be reached and applied was conveyed by the principal defendants under such circumstances that it could be reached and applied for the purpose of satisfying the debts of the principal defendants and that if there was liability the usual decree for reaching and applying such property would be entered.’
The judge of the Superior Court before whom the case was heard found that on April 23, 1925, the defendants gave to Samuel W. Johnson the three notes for $4,000 each; that each note was secured by a first mortgage on separate adjoining pieces of real estate; that in August, 1927, the defendants sold the properties to Justinas Andrusiunas and Grisalda Andrusiunas, husband and wife; that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Boston Heating Co. v. Middleborough Sav. Bank
-
Kaiser v. Kaiser
...existed at common law, (Williams v. Hutchinson, 3 N.Y. 312; Matter of Kane v. Necci, 245 App.Div. 1, 280 N.Y.S. 489, app. dismd. 269 N.Y. 31, 193 N.E. 13; S. v. S., 52 Misc.2d 865, 276 N.Y.S.2d 663). Section 415 of the Family Court Act creates this liability and provides as "Except as other......
- Johnson v. Czeikus