Van Der Veer v. Winegard

McCOMB, J.

From a judgment in favor of plaintiff after trial before the court without a jury in an action to set aside an alleged fraudulent transfer of real property, defendants appeal.

Viewing the evidence most favorable to respondent, the essential facts are:

June 24, 1937, defendants O. J. and Dollie Winegard conveyed to their daughter and eodefendant Ruth W. Pleaney the westerly 75 feet of lot 4, tract No. 3747 in the County of Los Angeles, as per map recorded in book 40, page 95 of maps in the office of the County Recorder of said county. At the time of the conveyance plaintiff was an existing creditor of the defendant grantors. August 18, 1930, the easterly 70 feet of lot 4 was also conveyed by defendant O. J. and Dollie Winegard to their codefendant Ruth W. Heaney.

Defendants rely for reversal of the judgment on these propositions:

First: There is no substantial evidence to sustain the implied finding of fact that the conveyance in question was made without consideration.

Second: The good faith of the parties to the conveyance should be tested as of the date tl\\e contract to convey was made rather than as of the date of the conveyance.

[520]

Third: The trial court committed prejudicial error in receiving evidence relative to the transaction appertaining to the easterly 70 feet of lot 4, tract 3747.

Fourth: The trial court committed prejudicial error in denying defendants’ motion for a new trial.

Defendants’ first proposition is untenable. The trial court found that it was untrue that prior to January 1, 1935, or at any other time defendants Winegard had contracted to sell the westerly 75 feet of lot 4, tract 3747 to their codefendant ; also that it was untrue that subsequent to January 1, 1935, or at any other time the aforementioned real property was conveyed to defendant Heaney for a good and. valuable consideration paid by said defendant Heaney to her codefendants.

It is true that defendants gave testimony to the contrary and stated that in October of 1933 defendant Winegard had entered into an agreement with their codefendant to convey the lot in question to her for $1,000 to be paid in installments of $20 per month. The trial court was not obligated to believe the testimony of defendants, even though uneontradicted by other evidence, where the circumstances in evidence satisfied the trial judge of the falsity of their testimony.