Johns v. Baender

KERRIGAN, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment against defendants in an action instituted by the plaintiff

[791]

to vacate and set aside a conveyance of real property alleged to have been made to obstruct and prevent plaintiff from satisfying a certain money judgment which he had theretofore obtained against the defendants, Charles L. Baender and Lillie M. Baender, his wife.

The evidence abundantly supports the finding that the conveyance of the property here assailed was made to defraud, hinder, and delay the collection of plaintiff’s claim.

It appears from the record that in the latter part of the year 1908 the defendants, Charles L. Baender and his wife, had falsely represented in several material respects a certain business transferred by them to the plaintiff in consideration of a conveyance of real property, 'by reason of which misrepresentations plaintiff in the month of June, 1910, obtained judgment against said defendants, which he now seeks to satisfy out of the property described in the complaint, the ownership of which in defendants arises from the original transfer to them by plaintiff of the real property above referred to as the consideration for plaintiff’s acquisition of said business, and which, with the intent of concealing their ownership thereof, they transferred to Challes P. Baender, the father of the defendant Charles L., who subsequently conveyed the same to R. M. Meeker. It appears that later it was exchanged for what is called in the record the Fruit-vale lot, which in turn was exchanged for the property described in the complaint, and that the deed thereto was taken in the name of the mother of Charles L. Baender, in whom the record title remained until it was conveyed to defendant Niels Gostave, which conveyance was made for the purpose of enabling Gostave to qualify as a 'bondsman for said Charles L. Baender, at that time charged with the offense of grand larceny.

After obtaining the first judgment plaintiff caused an execution to issue thereon, but neither by this means or in any other way was he able to collect the amount thereof, not learning of his debtor’s interest in the real property concerned in this action until early in the year 1915, when Lillie

M. Baender commenced an action for divorce against her husband, and alleged in her complaint that it was the community property of herself and husband.