Willey v. Hite

• Decision Date: 05 November 1914
• Docket Number: No. 29189.,29189.
• Citation: 175 Iowa 657,149 N.W. 250
• Parties: WILLEY v. HITE ET AL.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

175 Iowa 657

149 N.W. 250

WILLEY

v.HITE ET AL.

No. 29189.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Nov. 5, 1914.

Appeal from District Court, Carroll County; F. M. Powers, Judge.

Action to set aside certain conveyances claimed to have been made to defraud creditors. Affirmed.

Deemer, J., dissenting.W. C. Saul and B. I. Salinger, both of Carroll, for appellant.

Brown McCrary and Geo. G. Bowen, both of Carroll, for appellees.

GAYNOR, J.

On March 6, 1908, the defendants herein, C. G. Hite and M. E. Hite, his wife, purchased the land in controversy from one Joseph D. Osborne, and a deed therefor was executed to them jointly, and duly filed for record on March 12, 1908. On the 22d day of February, 1910, C. G. Hite became indebted to the plaintiff upon certain promissory notes. These notes became due February, 1911, and thereafter, on the 25th day of March, 1911, suit was brought upon them against C. G. Hite and others, and all defendants in that suit answered April 17, 1911. On the 18th day of October, 1911, judgment was entered against the defendant C. G. Hite for the full amount of said notes and costs. On the 22d day of April, 1911, C. G. Hite conveyed his interest in said property, by warranty deed, to his wife, M. E. Hite, conveying therein to her an undivided half interest in the land in controversy. On the 13th day of October, 1911, the defendant M. E. Hite, her husband joining therein, conveyed all of said land to the defendant Wm. Bowyer. The land in controversy contains 106 1/2 acres. At the time of the conveyance from C. G. Hite to his wife, M. E. Hite, the same was conveyed to her subject to a mortgage of $5,480. The plaintiff claims that the deed made to M. E. Hite by her husband, C. G. Hite, of an undivided one-half interest in the land in controversy, and the deed made by M. E. Hite to Wm. Bowyer, were made for the purpose of hindering, delaying, and defrauding plaintiff in the collection of his judgment, and he brings this action to set aside those conveyances, and to subject an undivided one-half interest in the land theretofore owned by C. G. Hite to the payment of said judgment. It appears that the defendants C. G. and M. E. Hite had occupied some portion of this 106 acres as a homestead for three or four years prior to the making of these conveyances, but the homestead had never been set off or marked as such, nor was any portion of said premises set apart as a homestead at the time this suit was commenced. The defendants herein filed separate answers. Each of the defendants deny each and every allegation of plaintiff's petition, and deny any intention to defraud the plaintiff in the making of the conveyances complained of. The Hites in their answers claim that the purchase money of the premises in question was furnished by the defendant M. E. Hite, and that without her knowledge or consent the deed of conveyance was made by Osborne in the name of both of the defendants, instead of in the name of the wife, and that the same was an error or mistake; that thereafter C. G. Hite agreed with his wife to convey the legal title to her of the entire premises. They both claim that they have lived upon these premises, in a house situated thereon, for more than four years last past; that this was their only home and homestead. They claim that they had a valid and existing homestead right therein long prior to the time the debt was created on which judgment was rendered; that the purpose in making the deed to Wm. Bowyer was to purchase another homestead; that the defendant C. G. Hite had a claim and homestead right in said premises at all times. The defendant Bowyer, answering the petition, denies any intention to defraud; affirms the matters set up in the answer of the other defendants, and alleges that he knew of the homestead character of the land; knew the same was incumbered; knew that C. G. Hite was in poor health and should be relieved from the burden of carrying on the work of the farm; that he paid a valuable consideration therefor in good faith; that he knew nothing of plaintiff's claim at the time he took said conveyance. The plaintiff for reply says that in extending the credit which made the debt on which the judgment herein sought to be enforced was rendered, the plaintiff relied upon the apparent ownership of said land in controversy, and that C. G. Hite was the owner of an undivided half interest therein, and that he extended credit to C. G. Hite in reliance thereon, and that the Hites, by permitting the same to appear of record in the name of both, are now estopped from denying that C. G. Hite was the owner of an undivided half interest therein. Upon the issues thus tendered, the court rendered judgment for the defendants, dismissing plaintiff's petition, and from this judgment, the plaintiff appeals.

[1] It appears that the consideration named in the deed from Osborne to these defendants was $6,000; that the deed was made subject to a mortgage of $4,500. It appears that this deed was made on March 6, 1908, and conveyed the land to C. G. and M. E. Hite jointly. It appears that prior to the purchase of this land, the defendants C. G. and M. E. Hite owned certain land in Calhoun county; that the record title to it was in them jointly; that they sold this Calhoun county land, and received therefor about $3,000. It appears that $500 was paid down at the time of the purchase of the land in question from Osborne, leaving $1,000 to be paid; that the $1,000 was later paid by check made by the defendant C. G. Hite; that the check for the $1,000 was signed by C. G. Hite; that both joined in the mortgage which was given to secure the balance. Defendants claim, however, that this money paid belonged to M. E. Hite. As to the Calhoun farm, they make the same claim that they make here, that, while the deed was in the name of both jointly, M. E. owned the entire property, and the proceeds that came from the sale of it. The explanation as to how she became the owner of the Calhoun county farm might convince an exceedingly credulous mind, but will not stand the test of judicial analysis. It appears from the evidence that they had very little property when they purchased the Calhoun farm. It appears that the transaction which resulted in the purchase of the Calhoun farm was carried on entirely by C. G. Hite; that the draft for the first payment was sent to C. G. It is claimed that the contract for the Calhoun farm was made in the wife's name. The contract is not produced. The defendants claim it had been burned or destroyed in some way, but the deed was made to them jointly. It appears that prior to, or at the time they bought the Calhoun land, they were living on a rented farm in Carroll county. That was 13 years prior to the time this action was tried.

M. E. Hite testifies that her husband “did the dickering for the Calhoun farm”; that he bought the farm for her; that she sent him to make the contract; that the money that was paid for the Calhoun farm, she said, was paid by her husband, but he got it from disposing of her stock. The land was bought for $25 an acre, and $200 was paid down; that the fact that the Calhoun farm was taken in the name of both, she said, was without her knowledge and consent. She said that the money she got to pay on this farm she gathered up from stock and personal property and things of that kind; that she made a small payment; that she was very poor.

In leading up to the purchase of this Calhoun county farm, the defendant M. E. Hite testifies:

“I lived in Mahaska county four years, and before that, in Marshalltown. I had some money when we came from Marshalltown to Mahaska county. I owned a town property located in Gilman, and it was in my name. Removed from Mahaska county onto a farm in Carroll county. Rented it from Grace. When we got to Carroll county, I don't remember exactly how much stock I had, but what was there belonged to me, and he [meaning her husband] had nothing but his clothes. I had my stock left, and I rented a farm. I didn't rent it personally; I let my husband do that. The lease was taken in my name. What was made on the Grace farm was my money, excepting what it took to pay the rent. My husband had a right to work there without pay, but I didn't hire him. While we lived on the Grace farm, the land in Calhoun was bought. The negotiations resulting in the purchase were carried on by my husband. He, and not I, made the deal. The money was paid by him, but it was got by disposing of my stock. My husband had no money when the Calhoun county farm was bought. The property I took with me to Mahaska county consisted of about six head of cattle and four horses. We stayed there four years. During this time, my husband accumulated nothing, and we lost out. Didn't take much stuff with me from Mahaska county, a few horses and some cattle. We had some lean years there. Rent was high, and we didn't have anything to start with to amount to anything, and we didn't make much money.”

C. G. Hite, in speaking of the purchase of this Calhoun farm, says:

“We didn't make any payments in advance. Didn't make any payment when we got it. We bought it in the fall, and the first payment was made in the spring following.”

It appears that they lived nine years on this Calhoun county farm; that it consisted of about 80 acres.

In speaking of the relationship of her husband to her and the property, which is involved in this suit, M. E. Hite said:

“My husband was my manager to run the farm for me. He did that, of course, as a husband would. He got his board and clothes; I guess he did; I don't know but what he got all he wanted to eat and wear.”

C. G. Hite, testifying concerning the purchase of the property in controversy, said:

“The purchase money for it, when it was purchased four years ago, came out of the Calhoun county farm, consisting of 80 acres. We got a little bit paid on the Calhoun county deal when I slipped down here and made the deal for the land in controversy. When we...