Creditors\u27 Rights and Security Transactions -- 1957 Tennessee Survey

Fraudulent Conveyances--Effect of Recordation of Fraudulent Conveyance on Subsequent Creditors: In Butler v. Holland, the Tennessee Supreme Court was faced with the question of whether the constructive notice of a recorded deed which is a fraudulent conveyance prevents a creditor, who became such after the recordation, from setting the conveyance aside. The plaintiff-creditor (Butler), in an effort to collect a debt due him from the estate of one Jesse Nolen, deceased, brought a suit in equity to have set aside, as a fraud against plaintiff, a conveyance of real estate by one Nolen to the defendant (Holland). The conveyance admittedly was a gift by Nolen to defendant. Plaintiff\u27s claim arose after the conveyance in question was recorded. Nolen (grantor) continued to live on the land for sometime after the questioned deed. He then moved off the property and went to live with defendant, who was a non-resident. While the opinion is not clear, there is considerable indication that Nolen may have been living on the land when plaintiff gave credit to Nolen. The Supreme Court sustained defendant\u27s demurrer on the sole ground that since the deed was on record before plaintiff\u27s claim arose plaintiff was charged with constructive knowledge of the conveyance and it was not, therefore, fraudulent as to plaintiff

Recent Important Decisions

Assignments- Assignment of an Expectancy - Joseph and James were two of six children. A contract witnessed that Joseph Snyder has sold to James Snyder one undivided sixth of the real estate owned by the mother, Susan Snyder; to secure said interest to James after her death, the mother unites in the conveyance of said interest The said Joseph warrants and defends the interest from all claims. The contract was signed by Joseph and by the mother. Held, Joseph had no estate which he could convey, and the contract, though made with the consent of the mother, was unenforceable either in law or in equity as against him. But the contract, though joined in by Joseph, who had no interest, was effective as a conveyance to James by the mother of a one-sixth interest of her estate in remainder. Joseph should be allowed to share equally with the others in the remaining five-sixths of the estate, after deducting the consideration money paid to him, which should be considered as an advancement. Snyder v. Snyder (Ky., 1921), 235 S. W. 743

SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE-MARKETABLE TITLE TO REALTY-COMPELLING VENDOR TO PURCHASE OUTSTANDING INTEREST

Plaintiffs sued for specific performance of a contract for the sale of real estate. Their attorney had concluded that the abstract furnished by defendant indicated a possible outstanding undivided one-half interest in the property. Refusing to accept a conveyance unless the alleged defect was eliminated or protection offered against an attack on the title, plaintiffs sought a decree requiring defendant to clear title and convey according to the contract. There was no showing that defendant could obtain a conveyance of the alleged outstanding interest. Held, specific performance denied. Bartos v. Czerwinski, 323 Mich. 87, 34 N.W. (2d) 566 (1948)

Future Interests - Restraints on Alienation - Same Rules Applicable to Restraints on Future and Possessory Interests

Testator devised real estate to his wife for life, remainder to his children, with the following understanding, that should any child attempt to dispose of his interest before the death of the testator\u27s wife, that child would forfeit his share and it would go to the remaining children. After the death of the testator, but before the death of his widow, one son conveyed away his interest in the property. In a suit for the partition of the real estate devised by the testator; held, on appeal, restraints on the alienation of vested estates in fee simple are against public policy and are therefore void. The conveyance by the son was effective. Andrews v. Hall, 156 Neb. 817, 58 N.W. (2d) 201 (1953)

Conveyance of Real Estate - Parol Gift of Land - Statute of Frauds

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has held that an alleged parol gift of land between blood relatives lacked immediate donative intent and a clear and unambiguous acceptance, where the donee rejected conveyances of the same property, because of issues collateral to the gift and independent of the disputed property interest. Fuisz v Fuisz, 527 Pa 348, 591 A2d 1047 (1991)

FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCES - CONTINGENT CREDITORS - BANK STOCKHOLDERS\u27 DOUBLE LIABILITY

A holder of bank stock conveyed real estate to her daughter in consideration of love and affection, leaving the grantor with no other assets than the bank stock. At the time, the bank stock had a market value of eleven dollars a share, and the bank was advertising for depositors; there was nothing in the record to indicate insolvency. About two years later the bank closed, and the superintendent of banks assessed the stockholders the amount of their statutory double liability. When the transfer was discovered the superintendent brought action to set aside the conveyance as fraudulent to the creditors of the bank. Held, that the bank creditors, because of the stockholders\u27 double liability, were at the time of the conveyance creditors of the grantor within the meaning of the statute; the bank superintendent, as representative of the creditors, could therefore set aside the conveyance as fraudulent to them. Squire, Supt. of Banks v. Cramer, 64 Ohio App. 151, 28 N. E. (2d) 516 (1940)

Statute of Frauds—Executory Land Contracts—Requisites and Sufficiency for a Written Description of Platted Land by Street Number, City, County and State

In an action for specific performance of a real estate contract, D set up the plea of the statute of frauds, in that there was an insufficient legal description. D had signed an earnest money agreement containing the following description: real property: at 309 E. Mercer, Seattle, King County, Washington. Held: the legal description is insufficient. Every contract for the sale or conveyance of platted real property must contain in addition to the other requirements of the statute of frauds, the description of such property by correct lot number(s), block, addition, city, county, and state. Martin v. Seigel, 35 Wn. 2d 223, 212 P. 2d 107 (1949)