Woods v. Allen

• Decision Date: 23 October 1899
• Citation: 80 N.W. 540,109 Iowa 484
• Parties: WOODS v. ALLEN ET AL.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

109 Iowa 484

80 N.W. 540

WOODS

v.ALLEN ET AL.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Oct. 23, 1899.

Appeal from district court, Polk county; C. P. Holmes, Judge.

Suit in equity to subject certain lots in the city of Des Moines, the title to which is in the defendant Evelyn Allen to the payment of a judgment held by plaintiff against Reuben Allen. The trial court dismissed the plaintiff's petition, and she appeals. Reversed.Dunshee & Allen, for appellant.

Barcroft & McCaughan, for appellees.

DEEMER, J.

Reuben Allen became indebted to plaintiff in the year 1892, and the claim was put in judgment in April of the year 1896. After the debt was contracted, but before the entry of judgment, Reuben Allen conveyed the lots in dispute to his wife, Evelyn Allen. Plaintiff contends that this conveyance was without consideration, and was made with intent to hinder, delay, and defraud the creditors of Reuben Allen; while defendants say that the conveyance was made in consideration of certain money loaned by Evelyn to her husband, Reuben, or in satisfaction of a trust resulting from the fact that she furnished the money with which the title to the property was procured.

That Mrs. Allen furnished her husband money many years ago may, for the purposes of the case, be conceded, but that there was any promise on his part to repay the same is disputed. Careful consideration of the record leads us to the conclusion that there was no such promise. A conveyance of real estate from husband to wife, in prejudice of the rights of the husband's creditors, cannot be sustained without satisfactory evidence of actual contractual relations between them with reference to the wife's separate money or property. In other words, the relation of debtor and creditor must be shown. Romans v. Maddux, 77 Iowa, 206, 41 N. W. 763;Letx v. Smith, 94 Iowa, 301, 62 N. W. 745. Reuben Allen testified that his wife gave him money to operate on; that he made no note; that there was no definite understanding that the money should be paid back; and that the only understanding between them was that she, the wife, wanted something in her name most of the time, to pay her “what was her dues.” He also testified that the wife had property in her name most of the time, and that at the time of trial she owned two pieces of property in the city of Omaha worth something like $10,000. It also appears that when the defendants came to Des Moines the husband had about $50,000 in money, which he loaned to various parties in the last-named city, and most, if not all, of which he lost. The record further discloses that there was no definite arrangement between husband and wife about what part of this money, if any, belonged to the wife, and no understanding about what...