Case Title: First National Bank of Santa Fe v. Ruebush

Citation: 304 P.2d 569, 62 N.M. 42

Docket Number: 

State: new-mexico

Court: New Mexico Supreme Court

Date: 1956-10-23T00:00:00Z

Document:
304 P.2d 569 (1956) 62 N.M. 42 The FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF SANTA FE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. H.H. RUEBUSH and Mrs. H.H. Ruebush, Defendants-Appellees. No. 6041. Supreme Court of New Mexico. October 23, 1956. Rehearing Denied December 19, 1956. Gilbert, White & Gilbert, Santa Fe, for appellant. M.W. Hamilton, Santa Fe, for appellees. LUJAN, Justice. This appeal was taken from a judgment for the defendants H.H. Ruebush and Mrs. H.H. Ruebush after their motion to dismiss the second amended complaint had been sustained without leave to amend. The grounds assigned in the motion to dismiss, are: (1) That the second amended complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted as against said defendants, *570 or either of them; and (2) that in that certain cause in the above entitled court H.H. Ruebush, plaintiff vs. Frank B. Melchior and Eva Melchior, defendants and numbered 26607 on the docket of said court a final decree has been entered, by the terms of which it is decreed that neither the defendant Frank B. Melchior nor the defendant Eva Melchior have any right, title, interest in or lien or claim upon the 53-acre tract of land and real estate in Santa Fe County referred to in said second amended complaint. The First National Bank of Santa Fe, plaintiff and appellant will hereinafter be referred to as the bank and the defendants as appellees. The motion to dismiss here involved, like a general demurrer, admits facts well pleaded, but not legal conclusions deduced therefrom by the pleader. In passing upon such motion to a complaint, all the allegations therein should be considered; and if, in view of the entire complaint the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief sought, the complaint is subject to dismissal. The facts required to be stated for an understanding of our decision, are that on April 23, 1952, the defendant Frank B. Melchior became indebted to the bank on a certain promissory note in the sum of $2,000 with interest at six per cent. per annum, and payable in ninety days. This note was thereafter replaced by renewals. On July 8, 1952, the defendant Frank B. Melchior entered into a purchase and sale contract with one Helen F. Sloan, individually and as executrix of the estate of John Sloan, deceased. Said contract provided in part as follows: On July 29, 1952, the defendant Frank B. Melchior entered into the following agreement with the appellee H.H. Ruebush: On September 11, 1952, Helen Farr Sloan, by warranty deed, conveyed the land involved herein to the appellee H.H. Ruebush. On April 21, 1953, approximately seven months after the deed was issued to appellee H.H. Ruebush, the bank filed suit against the defendant Frank B. Melchior and his wife on his promissory note. On August 7, 1953, more than one year after the above agreement had been entered into, judgment was rendered in favor of the bank and against the defendants, Melchiors, in the sum of $4,038.25, plus interest. Transcript of the judgment docket on said judgment was filed for record in the office of the Santa Fe County Clerk on the same day. The contention of the bank is that the appellee H.H. Ruebush knew or should have known, at the time he made the loan to Frank B. Melchior, that the transaction between them was for the purpose of defrauding it out of the note which eventuated in a judgment. While the complaint charges that "the defendant H.H. Ruebush knew or should have known of said wrongful purpose and intent of defendant Frank B. Melchior, but nevertheless acquiesced and participated in said transaction, which transaction was entered into by defendant H.H. Ruebush in order to evade the provisions of * * *" this averment was but a statement of the conclusion of the pleader. There is nothing in the allegations of the complaint to indicate or suggest that the appellee H.H. Ruebush knew of the existence of the bank's loan to Melchior at the time he made the loan to him. Ruebush's loan to Melchior was complete prior to the entry of judgment in the bank's favor for the amount of its loan. Ruebush's loan has never been paid and he still holds the title to the property in question as security. To make a conveyance a fraudulent transfer, a fraudulent intent participated in by both parties to the transaction must exist. National Mut. Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Lake, 47 N.M. 223, 141 P.2d 188. The conveyance must be made with the intention of the debtor to delay, hinder or defraud creditors and such intention be known to the party to whom the conveyance is made. It is clearly shown by the interrogatories propounded to appellee H.H. Ruebush by the bank that he had no knowledge of any fraudulent intent on the part of Frank B. Melchior to defraud the bank, if such be a fact. Interrogatory No. 5 and the answer thereto are as follows: We conclude that the complaint was subject to the motion to dismiss interposed thereto and the trial court properly sustained the same. The judgment is affirmed. It is so ordered. SADLER and KIKER, JJ., concur. COMPTON, C.J., and McGHEE, J., not participating.