Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

FEIST v. DRUCKERMAN

February 8, 1933

FEIST
v.
DRUCKERMAN et ux.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: CAMPBELL

CAMPBELL, District Judge.

This is a suit by a trustee in bankruptcy to set aside a conveyance made by the bankrupt to his wife, as fraudulent.

On October 15, 1930, the bankrupt was the owner of an undivided one-half interest in a large parcel of land, and the sole owner of two contiguous small triangular parcels of land, located at Woodhaven boulevard, borough of Queens, city of New York. The bankrupt's wife was the owner of the other undivided one-half interest in the large parcel.

 The value of all three parcels, as of October 15, 1930, was $50,000, and the value of the interest of the bankrupt was $25,000.

 The interest of the bankrupt was incumbered by a mortgage, originally of $10,000, reduced to $7,000, and unpaid taxes and assessments.

 The said bankrupt conveyed his entire interest in the property subject to the mortgage, taxes, and assessments to his wife, by deed dated October 15, 1930, and recorded on October 23, 1930.

 At the time of the conveyance by the bankrupt to his wife, the bankrupt was indebted to two banks in the aggregate sum of $85,000, and the indebtedness still remains unpaid to the extent of $42,500.

 The conveyance by the bankrupt to his wife was without consideration and therefore voluntary.

 The consideration expressed in the deed in question, from the bankrupt to his wife, was $1 and other valuable consideration.

 The plaintiff, in addition to offering the deed in evidence, called the bankrupt as his witness.

 I saw and heard the witness, and I entirely disbelieve the story he told as to the agreement of the wife to assume the payment of the mortgage, taxes, and assessments, and am confirmed in that belief by the fact that the deed to her contains no provision assuming the obligations and agreeing to pay the same, but simply that the property is taken subject to the mortgage, taxes, and assessments.

 Further, we must not lose sight of the fact that it was the brother of the bankrupt that it is claimed was pressing for payment of the mortgage, which the bankrupt contends caused him to make the conveyance in question, but there is no evidence that the mortgage has been paid. The $3,000 that was paid on account of the mortgage was paid by the bankrupt, and the taxes and assessments which were in arrears covered by the undivided one-half interest of the bankrupt, and the undivided one-half interest of the bankrupt's wife in the large parcel.

 I am convinced that the conveyance by the bankrupt to his wife was a voluntary one, and intended to put the property beyond the reach of his creditors.

 Wadleigh v. Wadleigh, 111 App. Div. 367, 97 N.Y.S. 1063, and Meyer v. Mayo, 196 App. Div. 78, 187 N.Y.S. 346, cited on behalf of the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.