Court Opinion

ID: 9827383
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 17:28:42.068696+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:29.944642
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Appellee files a motion for a rehearing as well as does the appellant. The latter prays a modification of the judgment wherein the judgment of the trial court in favor of ap-pellees T. H. and Ella Mayfield was affirmed, and asking for a judgment for one-half of the proceeds of the promissory note given to Emma Wells and Lee K. Wells for $1,400' and rents.
The appellee Lee K. Wells strenuously insists we are in error in holding there was no antecedent bona fide agreement between Lee K. Wells, appellee, and his deceased wife that she was to receive the conveyance and hold in trust until he could arrange with his existing creditors, and thereafter she was to convey the property, upon request, to him. While we said there was nothing to show his wife knew he was going to see a lawyer for the purpose of executing such a deed he did go to see one, but he did not tell her of his purpose beforehand nor at the time did she have any agreement with him. He testified:
“When we made the deed, she was with me when it was made.”
He also testified:
“I told Mr. Altgelt at' the time why I was doing it. * * * I went to Mr, Altgelt to draw up the deed to my wife. I didn’t tell him how to make it. I didn’t tell him nothing, except I told him to make me out a deed. As to what I told Mr. Altgelt when I went into his office, I told him I wanted to transfer the property to my wife, and I told him why I was doing it.”
Most of the testimony introduced by the witnesses and set forth in the motion for a rehearing is in respect to statements as to the status of the property subsequent to the conveyance.
As stated in the original opinion, Emma Wells repeatedly stated she regarded it as community property, and no doubt would have conveyed it to Lee K. Wells upon his request at any time, but he did not request her to do so. She knew the object, purposes, and illegal intent permeating the conveyance. Courts of equity are not going to pursue the subject of such conveyances beyond their present purpose after it has been shown there were creditors whose claims were postponed and delayed whatever the subsequent outcome, if the deed thus illegally executed purposed to hinder and delay the collection of claims, or was intended to defeat or postpone such claims. According to appellee Wells, his wife was quite well informed as to his intent and purposes which she may have well understood, and knew it did not prevent the title, as stated in our opinion, from taking full effect- in her.
AVe have carefully examined appellee’s motion for rehearing and, finding no merit in it or anything new not already considered, the motion is overruled. And, finding no merit in appellant’s motion for a modification of the judgment so as to reverse that part in favor of the Mayfields or to .modify and render, so that appellant recover one-half of the proceeds of the sale of the property to the Mayfields and for rents and revenues, it is likewise overruled.