Court Opinion

ID: 9830085
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 19:51:45.681392+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:12.407907
License: Public Domain

LEVY, J.
(after stating the facts as above).
The contention of appellant must be overruled, we conclude, that the conveyance from L. W. Ward to J. C. Stiles was in fraud of creditors. He placed all his interest in the land beyond the reach of ordinary process in legal action to the prejudice of the rights of existing creditors, and under circumstances, when all of them are considered, sufficient to show the object and effect to hinder and delay or defeat creditors. At least the circumstances are of sufficient probative force to make an issue of fact for decision by the jury as to the alienation of the unexempt part of the land being an act made with intention to hinder and defraud creditors. The evidence shows, too, that J. C. Stiles, the grantee, knew and participated in the object and purposes of his grantor. Further, the circumstances are sufficient to support the special finding of the jury that the bank had notice at the time it became the pledgee of the vendor’s lien notes of the purpose and intent of Ward to hinder and delay the appellee Skidmore in the collection of his debt.
 In giving effect to the jury finding that the conveyance was fraudulent, the court determined that the conveyance was an absolute nullity for all purposes as against appellee Skidmore, and allowed him *1055a foreclosure, as the judgment purports to do, of his prior judgment lien on all the land owned by L. W. Ward undertaken to be passed by the deed. The appellant bank claims, in effect, that this decision was error .under the facts, and to the extent, at least, of the 200-acre homestead. At the time the conveyance in suit was executed, on November 30, 1920, the debt of appellee Skidmore was due, but had not been reduced to judgment. J. P. Skidmore reduced -his debt to a judgment against L. W. Ward on November 2, 1922, and filed an abstract of it for record on May 11, 1922. The hank became the pledgee of the vendor’s lien notes, as collateral security for its debt, on January 25, 1921. The deed from Ward to Stiles passed all of R. W. Ward’s undivided half interest in the land. He had only a one-half interest in all the land. It is conclusively shown that a part of the land was occupied as a homestead by R. W. Ward and his family at the time of the conveyance, and that it had been his homestead continually for 30 years. Therefore the conveyance, as admittedly shown, included L. W. Ward’s homestead of 200 acres as well as his excess over the homestead right. The general rule is well settled that, where a fraudulent conveyance is set aside in a suit by a creditor, such annulment only restores to him and to the grantor, as against each other, their respective rights as they existed before the deed was executed. Redmond v. Hayes, 116 Minn. 403, 133 N. W. 1016. The rights of neither can be enlarged by the cancellation of the deed. The fraudulent conveyance remains as between the parties thereto, and the title to the land • vests in the grantee, subject only to the rights of creditors to have the grant annulled as to them. 27 C. J. p. 467; Stevens v. Cohern, 109 Tex. 574, 213 S. W. 925; and other cases. Applying the rule that the appellee Skidmore could enforce such legal rights he had as if no conveyance had been made, he had the legal right to look to all the un-exempt property of L. W. Ward for satisfaction of his debt. He would have no cause of action against any other property. Manifestly he did not have the legal right to resort to the homestead, protected by law. Article 3785, Rev. Stat.; Const. art. 16, § 50. And according to the great weight of authority a conveyance of a homestead is not a fraud on creditors and furnishes them no ground for complaint, even though it is made with actual intent to defraud general creditors. 27 C. J. p. 441; 12 R. C. L. p. 505; Beard v. Blum, 64 Tex. 59; Wood v. Chambers, 20 Tex. 254, 70 Am. Dec. 382; Martel v. Somers, 26 Tex. 560; Baines v. Baker, 60 Tex. 140. For the creditor is not injured by a conveyance of property which he cannot legally subject to his debt. -Since the creditor is affected only to the extent of property subject to the debt under ordinary execution, where a conveyance includes both property which is exempt as a homestead and property not so exempt, the creditor is entitled to reach the .property not exempt, if the conveyance is fraudulent as to him. This, however, is the extent of his right on setting aside the conveyance, and he can recover nothing beyond the excess over the homestead right. McNair v. Moore, 64 S. C. 82, 41 S. E. 829; Thysell v. McDonald, 134 Minn. 400, 159 N. W. 958, Ann. Cas. 1917C, 1015; Kennedy v. Bank, 107 Ala. 170, 18 So. 396, 36 L. R. A. 308.
A conveyance fraudulent in part, and therefore void as to that part, is not necessarily void in whole, but may be sustained as to the part which is free from legal fraud. 12 R. C. L. § 8, p. 475. The bank, a lienholder, setting up the defense that the sale of the homestead was valid between the parties and not fraudulent as to creditors,, would, in the facts, N be entitled to foreclose the vendor’s lien against the homestead to the extent of the value of the 200 acres, and the appellee Skidmore would not have the legal right to participate in the proceeds thereof. As between L. W. Ward, J. O. Stiles, and the bank, the bank acquired a valid claim to a debt against J. O. Stiles, the maker of the notes, and a valid lien ■against the homestead especially. J. O. Stiles’ notes, although executed for the accommodation of L. W. Ward, were, in the hands of the bank, binding obligations, at least to the extent of the debt pledged, and L. W. Ward had transferred and indorsed the notes to the bank. Skidmore v. Bank (Tex. Civ. App.) 261 S. W. 552. It is, in the facts, immaterial that the homestead exemption ceased when Ward acquired a home stead in Hidalgo county, for by the conveyance the title passed to J. O. Stiles and did not remain in Ward. Miller v. Menke, 56 Tex. 559; Inge v. Cain, 65 Tex. 81; Hargadene v. Whitfield, 71 Tex. 488, 9 S. W. 475. However, in view of the jury finding and the evidence, the bank would not be entitled to priority over the appellee Skid-more in the excess of the land above the homestead exemption. The bank’s lien would be subordinate to the lien of appellee Skid-more in the excess above the homestead. The bank knew, as the jury found, of the purpose and intent of R. W. Ward to defraud appellee at the time it took the vendor’s lien against all the land. The bank at the time was well secured with collateral security to pay its debt, and in exchanging and substituting the collateral acted purely for the accommodation of R. W. Ward, and not in its own interest, operating to hinder other creditors.
The appellant, as grounds for priority in ■ the excess above the homestead value, seeks to apply the doctrine that a debtor in *1056failing circumstances has a right to prefer one creditor over another for the purpose of securing a bona fide debt. The facts do not warrant the application of the doctrine. The facts conclusively show that the bank did not take the vendor’s lien notes solely for the purpose of securing its debt, and that there was no need to make the exchange. The bank already had sufficient “gilt edge security” for its debt, and solely for the accommodation of L. W. Ward, knowing at the time of his purpose and intent, as the jury found, surrendered the “gilt edge security” and took over the vendor’s lien notes in lieu thereof. The effect is that the bank was not the holder of the vendor’s lien notes, to the extent of the excess above the homestead value in the land, in good faith, unaffected with an act on its part of participation in and furtherance of the purpose and intent of L. W. Ward of hindering or delaying other creditors. 12 R. C. L. § 96, p. 577.
In accordance with the conclusions reached, the judgment of the trial court is modified to the extent of establishing a judgment lien in favor of appellee Skidmore on all the undivided interest of L. W. Ward in the land only in excess above the 200 acres as a homestead, and with foreclosure of such .lien in priority and full satisfaction of his debt to the debt of the bank, and adjudging a foreclosure of the vendor’s lien held by the appellant bank in favor of the bank to the value of the 200 acres exempt as a homestead. As modified, the judgment is then in 'all things affirmed. The costs of appeal are taxed against the appellee J. P. Skidmore.
Modified and affirmed.