Hillborn v. Soale

JAMES,

Plaintiff a judgment creditor of defendant Wilson H. Soale, instituted this action to have a certain deed and conveyance executed by said defendant to his codefendant declared null and void as having been made without consideration and for the purpose of preventing satisfaction of plaintiff’s judgment. The- decree was rendered as prayed for and both defendants appealed.

In the year 1908 the appellants purchased certain real property in the county of Los Angeles, for which a consideration of eight thousand dollars was paid, this money, so the evidence showed, being at the time of the investment the separate property of appellant Carl B. Soale, who is the wife of appellant Wilson H. Soale. A contract of purchase was first entered into on the part of these appellants as vendees, in which contract the amount of money mentioned was agreed to be paid as a consideration for the transfer, and the character of deed mentioned in this contract as required to be given was a “grant” deed. Both of these appellants signed the contract of purchase, and when the deed was made out it contained the recital that the grantors did ‘ ‘ grant to Carl B. Soale and Wilson H. Soale, her husband, as joint tenants with the right of survivorship,” the property of which a description followed. This deed was recorded on the twenty-first day of July, 1908, in the office of the county recorder. On August 6,1912, judgment was rendered in favor of respondent herein against appellant Wilson H. Soale. On the following day and before this judgment was entered so as to become a lien against real property standing in the name of said appellant, appellant Wilson H. Soale made his deed which purported to transfer to his wife all of his interest in the real property. Respondent, his judgment creditor, upon the entry of her judgment, caused execution to issue and a levy to be made against the

[311]

interest of her judgment debtor in the real property, and then brought this action to have the conveyance of Soale to his wife set aside. Appellants in their answer denied that Wilson H. Soale had any interest in the real property at all, and alleged that the same had been at all times subsequent .to the purchase thereof the sole and separate property of Carl B. Soale. This issue was decided adversely to their claims, and the question is presented here as to whether the evidence heard was sufficient to sustain the judgment declared by the court. On behalf of respondent it is insisted that there is ample evidence to support the fimding of the trial court that appellant Wilson H. Soale, at the time respondent obtained her judgment against him, held a joint tenant’s interest in the property, which he had acquired by gift from his wife. This contention makes it necessary that the evidence be examined in detail. It must be admitted at the outset that, in so far as the express declarations of appellants are shown to have been given in testimony, such declarations negative wholly the claim that there was an intention on the part of the wife to make a gift to her husband of an interest in the real property. The trial judge, however, in making up his conclusions, was required to take into consideration all of the circumstances surrounding the transaction and determine from them what the intent of the parties really was.