Tanner v. Whitney
| Decision Date | 23 June 1932 |
| Docket Number | No. 1070.,1070. |
| Parties | TANNER v. WHITNEY et ux. |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
Appeal from Superior Court, Providence and Bristol Counties; Charles A. Walsh, Judge.
Suit by William A. F. Tanner against James L. Whitney and wife. From a decree dismissing the bill of complaint, complainant appeals.
Reversed.
Charles H. Eden, of Providence, for appellant.
Everard Appleton, of Providence, for appellees.
This is a suit in equity by complainant to have a conveyance of real estate, made by James L. Whitney to the respondent Josie, his wife, set aside as in fraud of creditors. The cause was heard on bill, answer, and oral proof, and a final decree was entered denying the relief prayed for and dismissing the bill of complaint The cause is in this court on complainant's appeal; the reasons thereof being that the decree is against the law and the weight of the evidence.
The respondents were married in 1911 and lived together in a house owned by Mrs. Whitney. In 1912 she gave an undivided half interest in this house to her husband. Subsequently they jointly mortgaged and in 1924 sold the house and deposited the proceeds of the sale to their joint account in a bank. In 1927 James Whitney, who was employed as a foreman in a manufacturing establishment, lost his position. He then established a business connection with complainant, an insurance agent. Whitney was to act as a broker and to sell on commission different kinds of insurance for companies represented by complainant. Whitney billed his customers direct and reported the transactions to Tanner, who credited him with his commissions and accounted to him for the net amount due him. In 1928 Whitney and his wife withdrew their joint bank deposit and with this money bought the real estate now the subject of controversy and built a house thereon. A part of the money required for this transaction was secured by a joint mortgage on the new estate.
In July, 1929, Whitney owed Tanner about $2,500. When urged to pay his indebtedness, Whitney told Tanner he was unable to pay because his customers were slow in paying accounts due to him. This excuse was not true, as at that time a considerable part of these accounts had been collected and the money received and retained by Whitney. Thereafter, on July 20, Whitney, without any consideration, conveyed his interest in the house to his wife and had the deed recorded. This transfer disposed of all the property he owned, and his only source of income was such commissions as he might earn in selling insurance for Tanner. Whitney, in conversations with Tanner and with the stenographer in Tanner's office, continued to refer to this property as "my house." Insurance policies on the house in 1929 and again in 1930 were taken out by Whitney through the agency of Tanner in the names of Whitney and his wife as joint owners. During the fall of 1930 Tanner continued to ask for a list of the unpaid accounts, and finally, on, January 1, 1931, he was given a statement it then appeared that Whitney's indebtedness to Tanner was about $5,000, of which amount Whitney had collected $2,800 which he had not paid to Tanner. Whitney in November, 1930, offered to give a second mortgage on his house as security for his debt. Tanner agreed to take it and forego any interest. Whitney later reported that he could not give a mortgage as it would cost him too much, and also that his wife would not execute any such mortgage. Tanner first learned of the transfer made by Whitney to his wife January 2, 1931. The friendly relations between the two men came to an end, and Tanner at once brought suit, attached the real estate of the Whitneys, and on June 23, 1931, secured a judgment for $2,803.69. This bill of complaint was filed July 31, 1931.
Whitney denied any fraudulent intent in the transfer to his wife. He testified that the reason for the creation of the joint tenancy and the joint bank account was to avoid the necessity of probate proceedings in case of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Landmark Medical Center v. Gauthier
...is not fatal to plaintiff's claim. Id. "As has often been said, a debtor must be just before he is generous." Tanner v. Whitney, 52 R.I. 391, 394, 161 A. 122, 123 (1932). We have long held that a prima facie case of intent to delay, hinder, or defraud creditors is established when a conveya......
-
Oldham v. Oldham, 1298.
...condition, it matters little whether one presses a right promptly or slowly, within limits allowed by law." (Italics ours.) Tanner v. Whitney, 52 R.I. 391, 161 A. 122; Hatton v. Howard Braiding Co, 47 R.I. 47, 129 A. 805; Stephens v. Dubois, 31 R.I. 138, 76 A. 656, 140 Am.St.Rep. 741; Willi......
-
Premier Capital, Inc. v. Hand, C.A. No. K.C. 2005-677 (R.I. Super 12/27/2006)
...does not require proof of actual fraud." Oury v. Annotti, 113 R.I. 506, 508, 324 A.2d 325, 327 (1974) (citing Tanner v. Whitney, 52 R.I. 391, 394, 161 A. 122, 123-24 (1932)). Thus, "the decisive question in [UFTA cases] is whether such a conveyance had the effect of depriving [the creditor]......
-
Re-Source, Inc. v. Carlin
...even if honest, but by the effect on the creditor's right of recovery"); Nisenzon, 689 A.2d at 1045. Moreover, as the Court articulated in Whitney, vital question is, [d]oes the conveyance deprive the creditor of a right which would be legally effective had the conveyance not been made?" Wh......