Opinion ID: 2162881
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Applicability of section 713.6, The Code 1977 (repealed), in this situation.

Text: The language of section 713.6, The Code 1977 (repealed), under which defendant was charged, is essentially unchanged from a predecessor statute, section 2745, The Code 1851. That statute was in turn based on an ancient English law, An Act Against Fraudulent Deeds, Alienations & c., 1570, 13 Eliz. I, c. 5. The English enactment obviously was designed not only to avoid and abolish feigned conveyances contrived of malice, fraud and collusion intended to delay, hinder or defraud creditors and others of their just and lawful actions, but also to bar any transactions which went against all true and plain dealing [and] bargaining. Every party to such a covinous ( i. e., deceitful) or fraudulent grant or conveyance, and anyone being privy and knowing of the same who wittingly and willingly put the same in use was subject to criminal penalties. Among the others protected were those entitled to heriots and mortuaries, tributes payable on death. Section 713.6, The Code 1977 (repealed), can be read to provide, Any person who, knowingly being a party to any conveyance . . . of any estate or interest in lands . . . made or created with intent . . . to. . . defraud creditors or other persons, and every person who, being privy to or knowing of such fraudulent conveyance,. . . puts the same in use as having been made in good faith, shall be imprisoned . . . or may be fined. . . . We may agree with defendant that this enactment is so similar to the original English enactment that it is logical to attribute similar intents to the legislative bodies. See generally 2A A. Sutherland, Statutes and Statutory Construction § 52.02 (4th ed. C. Sands 1973). It is also plain from the language of the English statute that it was formulated to nullify fraudulent conveyances as well as penalize participating parties, and that persons other than creditors were protected. And we also recognize the principle that if the language of a statute is plain, unambiguous, and consistent with related statutory provisions, no duty of interpretation arises and there is no occasion to probe for legislative intent. Spilman v. Board of Directors, 253 N.W.2d 593, 596 (Iowa 1977); First National Bank of Ottumwa v. Bair, 252 N.W.2d 723, 725 (Iowa 1977); State v. Dunham, 232 N.W.2d 475, 476 (Iowa 1975). Former section 713.6 traces into present section 714.1(3), The Code 1979 (Theft defined) which relevantly provides that a theft is committed when a person [o]btains. . . a transfer of possession, control, or ownership of the property of another. . . by deception. See J. Roehrick, The New Iowa Criminal Code: A Comparison 124-25, 127 (1977) (Except for the notations [not applicable], no change in the prior law is foreseen. Thus refer to existing case law and Uniform Jury Instructions 509.1-6.).
Defendant argues that the common thread connecting the Elizabethan statute with its counterparts in America is the protection of creditors from a debtor's wrongful conveyance to avoid debts. He asserts the other persons language of section 713.6 refers to claimants against the grantor, and although the language is broad enough to cover contingent debts, it cannot be expanded to include heirs. Defendant further argues the intent to defraud must be in the mind of the grantor before a grantee can be held liable on the ground the latter had knowledge of the fraudulent conveyance. He reasons that because Zeiger as executor was the innocent grantor and had no intent to defraud, he, as a party to the conveyance, is absolved from criminal liability. We are not so persuaded. In an early Iowa decision, this court, in referring to a predecessor to section 713.6, stated, The words other persons must be construed to mean some one who had, or might have, a claim or right to the property conveyed, which might be enforced at law or equity. . . . The statute must have a practical and legal application. It was not the intent the statute should be regarded in the light of a moral code, and operate on the conscience of the party making the conveyance, but its purpose is to protect the legal or equitable rights of others. . . . . . If the plaintiff had been indicted under the statute, he could not have been convicted unless it could have been established there were creditors, or that the conveyance was made to defraud some person who had or might have a claim or right to the property conveyed. Day v. Lown, 51 Iowa 364, 369-70, 1 N.W. 786, 790-91 (1879) (emphasis added and citations omitted). In State v. McGee, 200 Iowa 329, 332, 204 N.W. 408, 409 (1925), we said the purpose of the predecessor statute was to protect the legal or equitable rights of others. It must be given a practical application. We thus turn to an examination of the evidence in this case in the light most favorable to the State. Our inquiry is whether, after viewing all the evidence in that light, any rational fact finder could have found the contested essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. See State v. Robinson, 288 N.W.2d 337, 339-40 (Iowa 1980). More specifically, we must determine whether under that criterion the evidence justifies a finding there was a fraudulent conveyance, and if Nettie Miller's beneficiaries, who included Zeiger, were other persons who had, or might have, a claim or right to the property conveyed. Day, 51 Iowa at 369-70, 1 N.W. at 791. We hold trial court was right in analyzing defendant's criminal responsibility in light of the January 15, 1976, Zeiger-to-Doerfer real estate contract. Defendant agreed with Sindlinger that the prior transaction should be abandoned and that the contract should be processed as a sale out of the estate. This contract was a conveyance transferring the equitable title, McCreary v. McGregor, 183 Iowa 732, 737, 167 N.W. 633, 634 (1918), and was so represented by defendant in the subsequent sale from the straw man Doerfer to Luhring. The Zeiger-to-Doerfer contract appears in the Miller farm abstract as a vital link in the chain of title. Trial court rationally could have found beyond a reasonable doubt this conveyance was fraudulent as to Zeiger and the other beneficiaries of Nettie's will on not less than two of the grounds trial court relied on: (1) a misrepresentation as to the true identity of the purchasers of the property (there is no dispute Zeiger never would have sold to Mark) and (2) a misrepresentation as to the value of the property and the price for which it could be sold. See Pacific Royalty Co. v. Williams, 227 F.2d 49, 56 (10th Cir. 1955), cert. denied, 351 U.S. 951, 76 S.Ct. 847, 100 L.Ed. 1474 (1956). At least from the date of Nettie's death, defendant helped to conceal the true nature of the sale and the true value of the farm from Zeiger and her co-beneficiaries of Nettie's estate, and from the court. We pass to question whether trial court could have found these beneficiaries were persons who, under Day, had or might have a claim or right to the property conveyed. Under Nettie's will, title to the Miller farm passed to the residuary beneficiaries subject to the right of Zeiger as executor to sell the property during the probate proceedings. See DeLong v. Scott, 217 N.W.2d 635, 637 (Iowa 1974). We think they had sufficient remaining claim or interest in the property for section 713.6 purposes when its sale was fraudulent as to them. Even though the executor's power of sale under the will may have effected an equitable conversion of the property as to the beneficiaries for distribution purposes, Newbury v. McCammant, 182 N.W.2d 147, 150-51 (Iowa 1970); § 633.384, The Code, the charge nonetheless would lie because section 713.6 includes conveyances of both real and personal property. See In re Jurgensmeier's Estate, 142 Neb. 188, 200-01, 5 N.W.2d 233, 240 (1942); Heyl v. Goelz, 97 Wis. 327, 72 N.W. 626 (1897). We hold trial court committed no error in rejecting the legal argument that there was no fraudulent conveyance because Zeiger had no fraudulent intent. She was 71 years old on the date of the Doerfer contract, and had retired from school teaching in 1971. She admitted she did not know how much money was in the conservatorship since Mr. Sindlinger took care of all of this. She further testified she did not know enough about a farm to manage it. She demonstrated no knowledge of farm values, except she later opined the Doerfer sale had been too cheap. As grantor in the fraudulent conveyance, Zeiger was an innocent though malleable tool for defendant and Sindlinger. Although they and Mark provided the fraudulent intent for both the unwitting seller and undisclosed buyers, we find no language in section 713.6 which requires the fraudulent intent to be in the grantor, and we impose no such requirement here. There was abundant evidence to support trial court's finding that defendant was a party (as undisclosed purchaser) to a fraudulent conveyance, and further, that he put the same in use as having been made in good faith. See § 713.6, The Code 1977 (repealed). We have examined the authorities cited in defendant's brief, and find none are similar factually and all are inapposite. On the other hand, in Leonardo v. Leonardo, 251 F.2d 22 (D.C. Cir. 1958), the federal court held a common-law wife's inchoate right of dower was an interest in property and the wife was among the protected other persons in a statute springing from 13 Eliz. I, c. 5. The interests of these beneficiaries surely were entitled to the same protection. Trial court rightly determined that section 713.6 is applicable in this situation.