Sieb's Hatcheries v. Lindley
| Decision Date | 14 April 1953 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 1026. |
| Citation | 111 F. Supp. 705 |
| Parties | SIEB'S HATCHERIES, Inc. v. LINDLEY et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Arkansas |
James R. Hale, Fayetteville, Ark., for plaintiff.
Rex W. Perkins, Fayetteville, Ark., for defendants.
On June 14, 1952, plaintiff filed its complaint against defendants to recover $8,148.67, with interest thereon from September 5, 1950, at the rate of six per cent per annum, and to set aside as fraudulent certain conveyances of real property and transfers of notes and mortgages specifically described in the complaint.
On June 27, 1952, the defendants, Lester Lindley, F. M. Lindley, Willie Lindley and Sherman Madden, filed their answer denying the allegations of the complaint. On July 16, 1952, the plaintiff filed and served a demand for admission of facts. On July 23, 1952, the defendants, Lester Lindley, F. M. Lindley, Willie Lindley and Sherman Madden, filed their response to the demand for admission of facts. The response was not verified as required by Rule 36, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A.
On July 24, 1952, the defendants, Jack Sharpensteen and Lucille Sharpensteen, filed their response to the demand for admission of facts. Likewise, their response was not verified. Also, on the same date, they filed a motion to require plaintiff to make its complaint more definite and certain.
On July 26, 1952, the plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment against the defendants, Lester Lindley, F. M. Lindley and Sherman Madden.
A pre-trial conference was held on July 28, 1952, and on that date an order was entered requiring the plaintiff to make its complaint more definite and certain and directing it to more fully describe the property it claims was transferred illegally and to which defendant it was transferred.
Also, on the same date, the court ordered the parties to brief the question of liability of the defendants, Lester Lindley, F. M. Lindley and Sherman Madden, on the response filed by said defendants to the request for admission of facts.
On August 6, 1952, the plaintiff filed an amendment to its complaint in conformity with the order of the court of July 28, 1952.
On August 9, 1952, the plaintiff filed its brief in support of the motion for summary judgment against the defendants, Lester Lindley, F. M. Lindley and Sherman Madden. After plaintiff had served and filed its brief, the said defendants filed a motion to amend their response to demand for admission of facts.
On August 23, 1952, the defendants, Jack Sharpensteen and Lucille Sharpensteen, filed their answer to the amended complaint.
On September 4, 1952, the defendants, Lester Lindley, F. M. Lindley, Willie Lindley and Sherman Madden, filed an amendment to their motion to amend their response to the demand for admission of facts and on September 9, 1952, the plaintiff filed its response to the amendment of the motion of said defendants and asked that their motion to amend the response be denied. The question of whether the defendants should be allowed to amend their response to the request for admission of facts and the proposed amendment thereto was considered by the court and on September 30, 1952, the court rendered its opinion thereon and in accordance therewith the motion and the amended motion of defendants, Lester Lindley, F. M. Lindley and Sherman Madden, were denied, and the defendants were directed to file and serve briefs in opposition to the motion of plaintiff for summary judgment. See, Sieb's Hatcheries, Inc., v. Lindley, D.C.W. D.Ark., 13 F.R.D. 113.
Following the filing of the opinion and the entry of the order in accordance therewith, the defendants filed their brief in opposition to the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, and the court then considered the motion and briefs filed by the respective parties and, on November 25, 1952, filed its opinion sustaining the motion for summary judgment against defendants, Lester Lindley and F. M. Lindley, and directed that the plaintiff make proof of the amount due it on a judgment obtained in this court against Ozark Poultry & Egg, Inc., on January 16, 1952. See, Sieb's Hatcheries, Inc., v. Lindley, D.C.W.D. Ark., 108 F.Supp. 415. The plaintiff made such proof and, on December 8, 1952, judgment was rendered herein against the defendants, Lester Lindley and F. M. Lindley, for the sum of $8,415.70, with interest thereon at the rate of six per cent per annum.
On the same date, the complaint of plaintiff against defendants, Jack Sharpensteen and Lucille Sharpensteen, was dismissed.
On March 25, 1953, the cause came on for hearing on the complaint of the plaintiff seeking to set aside certain conveyances of real property and transfers of notes and mortgages alleged to have been fraudulently made by the defendant, F. M. Lindley, to the defendant, Willie Lindley, and also certain conveyances to the defendant, Sherman Madden. At the conclusion of the trial, the court orally stated its tentative findings of fact on certain issues and directed the respective parties to file briefs on the questions of law raised by the testimony introduced at the hearing. The briefs of the parties have been received and considered along with the ore tenus and documentary testimony, and the court now makes and files herein its findings of fact and conclusions of law, separately stated.
The plaintiff is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Illinois with its principal place of business at Lincoln, Illinois. The defendants, Lester Lindley, F. M. Lindley, Willie Lindley and Sherman Madden, are citizens of Arkansas and reside within the Western District thereof. The amount involved herein exceeds $3,000 exclusive of interest and costs.
On January 16, 1952, the plaintiff obtained a judgment in this court in Civil Action No. 991 against Ozark Poultry & Egg, Inc., for the sum of $8,148.67, with interest thereon from September 5, 1950. (Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 8.)
On December 8, 1952, plaintiff obtained judgment in the instant case against the defendants, Lester Lindley and F. M. Lindley, for the sum of $8,415.70, with interest thereon at the rate of six per cent per annum. (Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 9.)
On August 10, 1935, Emma P. Cowper conveyed to the defendant, F. M. Lindley, for a stated consideration of $450 certain real property in the City of Springdale, Arkansas, being a part of the east half of Block 5 in the Railroad Addition to the said city, and more particularly described as "beginning at a point 87 feet south of the northeast corner of said block and running thence west 94½ feet to an alley; thence south 87 feet; thence east 94½ feet to the east line of said block, and thence north 87 feet to the place of beginning." This deed was duly recorded on September 13, 1935, and this property has been occupied by the defendant, F. M. Lindley, and Mrs. Willie Lindley, who is his wife, since the date of the deed or for approximately twenty-eight years and is now so occupied. (Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 2.)
On February 21, 1923, J. W. Arnold and wife conveyed to the defendants, F. M. Lindley and Willie Lindley, "husband and wife," a part of the east half of Block 5 in the Railroad Addition to the City of Springdale, Arkansas, specifically described as follows:
"Beginning at the northeast corner of said block and running thence south 87 feet; thence west 94½ feet to the east line of a 20-foot alley; thence north 87 feet to the north line of said block; thence east 94½ feet to the place of beginning, being 87 feet squarely off of the north end of Lot 1 in Block 5 in said addition."
This deed was duly recorded on March 5, 1928, and discloses a consideration of $2,900.
This particular property is rental property and is occupied by the Ozark Motor Company, which pays a rental to Mrs. Willie Lindley of approximately $145 per month. (Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 3.)
On February 2, 1952, the defendant, F. M. Lindley, conveyed the property described in Findings of Fact Nos. 4 and 5 to the defendant, Willie Lindley, by warranty deed which was duly recorded on April 23, 1952. The conveyance was made subject to a certain real estate mortgage held by the First State Bank of Springdale, Arkansas, for the principal sum of $6,500 on the north 87 feet of Lot 1 in Block 5 or the part now occupied by the Ozark Motor Company. (Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 1.)
On March 1, 1951, the Ozark Poultry & Egg, Inc., executed and delivered to the defendant, F. M. Lindley, a mortgage on the real property owned by said corporation, being described as follows:
"Part of the SE¼ of the NE¼ of Section 35, Township 18 North, Range 30 West, described as beginning 60 rods North of the SW corner of the said 40-acre tract and running thence east 300 feet, thence north 140 feet, thence west 300 feet, thence south 140 feet to the place of beginning."
This mortgage was executed to secure the payment of an indebtedness that the corporation owed F. M. Lindley in the sum of $3,400, evidenced by a promissory note, with interest thereon at six per cent per annum, and was duly recorded March 2, 1951. (Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 4.)
On and prior to February 20, 1952, the defendants, F. M. Lindley and wife, Willie Lindley, were the owners as tenants by the entirety of a certain large farm in Washington County, Arkansas, and on that date sold the farm to Carroll L. Talbot and wife for a consideration of approximately $32,500, subject, however, to a mortgage in the sum of $4,678.09 in favor of the National Equity Life Insurance Company of Little Rock, Arkansas. The net consideration for this conveyance was paid to the defendants, F. M. Lindley and wife, Willie Lindley, as tenants by the entirety. (Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 5.)
On August 8, 1951, Southwest Lime Company filed a suit in the United States District Court, Western District of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
US v. Vertac Chemical Corp.
...broad construction by Arkansas courts. See Hernton v. Short, 121 Ark. 383, 181 S.W. 142, 144 (1915). See also Sieb's Hatcheries, Inc. v. Lindley, 111 F.Supp. 705 (W.D. Ark.1953), aff'd, 209 F.2d 674 (8th Cir. 1954). The United States and ADPC & E, by virtue of their judgment creditor status......
-
In re Baugh
...at 725; Bank of Sun Prairie v. Hovig, 218 F.Supp. at 769; In re Locke, 50 B.R. 443 (Bkrtcy.E.D.Ark.1985); Seib's Hatcheries, Inc. v. Lindley, 111 F.Supp. 705 (W.D.Ark.1953), aff'd, 209 F.2d 674 (8th Cir.1954). Intent to defraud on the part of the vendor may be established by evidence of the......
-
United States v. Johnston
...180 Ark. 1110, 25 S.W.2d 438; Cook v. Cook, 12 Ark. 381; Bank of Sun Prairie v. Hovig, W.D.Ark., 218 F.Supp. 769; Sieb's Hatcheries v. Lindley, W.D. Ark., 111 F.Supp. 705, aff'd 8 Cir., 209 F.2d On the issue of fraudulent intent the ultimate burden of persuasion is always upon the plaintiff......
-
In re Brown
...not have constituted property from which unsecured creditors could have looked to satisfy their claims. Sieb's Hatcheries, Inc. v. Lindley, 111 F.Supp. 705, 715 (W.D.Ark.1953) (ruling a fraudulent transfer may not be set aside unless the property conveyed was subject to satisfaction of the ......