Court Opinion

ID: 5445291
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-01-08 18:09:39.749949+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:32:09.948360
License: Public Domain

Beatty, C. J., concurring.—
I concur. It does not seem possible to avoid the conclusion that the law of California on the subject of voluntary conveyances by insolvent debtors is such as in the opinion of Justice Garoutte it is declared to be. But I cannot refrain from expressing the belief that it is most unfortunate that the court should be forced to that conclusion.
When an insolvent debtor makes a gift of his property to a donee of his own selection, there can be but one result so far as his creditors are concerned; they are necessarily deprived of what is rightfully theirs, and the law ought to pronounce such a transaction ipso facto fraudulent and void as to them.
Our legislature, however, has deliberately chosen to make the rights of creditors in such case depend, not upon the proof of facts susceptible of demonstration, and from -which the injury is a necessary result, but upon proof of the secret intent of the debtor; in other words, upon the whim of a jury.
*304Such a law invites fraud, puts a premium upon perjury, and multiplies fruitless litigation. It ought to be changed, but the legislature alone has the power to change it. In the mean time the courts should give the utmost force and effect to so much of the law for the protection of creditors as remains. There should be no hesitation in stating, and in everywhere insisting, upon the proposition that a voluntary conveyance by an insolvent debtor is prima facie proof of a fraudulent intent, which throws upon the donee the necessity of rebutting the inference of fraud, and it ought not to be held or intimated that such inference will be rebutted by the mere fact that the debtor was at the date of the conveyance ignorant or uncertain as to his insolvency. It ought to be made clear, on the contrary, that he believed, and had gpod reason to believe, that his property remaining after the conveyance would be amply sufficient to enable him to meet and discharge his obligations as they matured.
Rehearing denied.