Court Opinion

ID: 9696701
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 18:55:37.789364+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:25.659629
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion by
Mr. Justice Manderino:
I dissent. Section 357 of the Uniform Fraudulent Conveyance Act is not applicable to this case. The appellee conveyed an interest in property to his wife on August 22, 1966. On that date the petition asking that the appellee be held in contempt had not yet teen filed. It was not filed until eight days later on August 30, 1966. Under such circumstances, the appellee’s conveyance could not have been with actual intent to defraud a future creditor. At the time of the conveyance in this case, it was pure speculation as to whether a petition for contempt would be filed—it was pure speculation whether the appellee would be adjudged guilty of criminal contempt—it was pure speculation that a criminal penalty would be imposed in what was and had been a custody dispute between parents—it was pure speculation that the criminal penalty would be the exorbitant sum of |25,000. Under such circumstances there was no conveyance with actual intent to defraud a future creditor, even assuming that a legal liability for a crim*350inal penalty is covered by the Uniform Fraudulent Com veyance Act and even assuming that such a criminal penalty can be imposed without a jury trial.
The decree of the lower court should be affirmed.