Opinion ID: 1771061
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: can labarre and barber invoke the doctrine of clean hands against harvey gold?

Text: Barber and LaBarre argue that Gold and Bell cannot recover in equity because they were parties to a transaction designed to defraud Barber's creditors. Harvey Gold, however, was not aware of the true nature of the transaction. He was unaware of the judgments against Barber, and was not present when the parties met to plan the transaction on February 15, 1980. He signed the note, held title, and deeded the property to Jabour solely at his father's request. Now Harvey Gold remains liable to Bell on a promissory note. Barber and LaBarre ask us to invoke the doctrine of clean hands to prevent Gold from recovery. This would allow them to profit from their deception. The doctrine of clean hands is not invoked for the benefit of parties to fraudulent transactions ... Thigpen v. Kennedy, 238 So.2d 744, 747 (Miss. 1970). It cannot apply to the only innocent party to these transactions who would bear the loss caused by Barber's and LaBarre's conversion. Thus, the chancellor was correct in holding that the appellants LaBarre and Barber could not invoke the doctrine of clean hands. See Crabb v. Comer 190 Miss. 289, 200 So. 133 (1941).