Marra v. Marra

• Decision Date: 17 December 1928
• Citation: 144 A. 12
• Parties: MARRA v. MARRA.
• Court: New Jersey Court of Chancery

144 A. 12

MARRA

v. MARRA.

Court of Chancery of New Jersey.

Dec. 17, 1928.

Suit by Amalia Marra against Maria Marra and others. Decree for complainant advised.

James Mango, of Newark, for complainant.

Anthony A. Calandra, of Newark, for defendants.

CHURCH, Vice Chancellor. This is a suit to compel the reconveyance of certain property to the complaint, and for an accounting of the profits.

The facts are these: In 1919 complainant was the owner of four properties in Newark. Prior to this time she was married to the defendant Natale Marra, and has had by him 11 children. In 1922 the property was conveyed to one George Pallitta without consideration. Complainant alleges the conveyance was made because she could not keep up the building and loan charges, and that Pallitta, who is the brother of the attorney for the building and loan association, was to pay up the arrearages out of the income and then reconvey.

Defendants insist that the real reason the property was in complainant's name and was conveyed to Pallitta was to defraud his creditors, and also to defraud, of her dower, a wife who was living in Italy.

In July, 1927, Pallitta reconveyed the premises without any notice to complainant and without consideration to one Maria Marra, who alleges that she is the lawful wife of Natale, having married him in Italy before he came to this country and married complainant. No proof of this alleged marriage was offered at the hearing, except Maria's own testimony. Defendants Natale and Maria in their answer simply deny that complainant was the owner of the property. They ask for no affirmative relief. The proofs conclusively show that the title was in complainant, and that it was conveyed without consideration to Pallitta, who, without consideration, reconveyed to the defendant Maria. Defendant insists that his money bought the property, and that he transacted all the business incident to its upkeep, payments of interests, collection of rents, etc.

He has, in my opinion, no standing in this court. If his story be true, he comes into a court of equity with hands far from clean. He conveyed his property to a woman not his wife, by whom he had 11 children, for the express purpose of defrauding his creditors and his lawful wife. Such a suitor in this court is not entitled to the slightest consideration, and his testimony is unworthy of belief.

Counsel have discussed at considerable length the problem, who actually is the wife of Natale Marra? Is it...