Court Opinion

ID: 9447513
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 22:36:49.694359+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:31:04.626909
License: Public Domain

CASTLE, Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
I find myself in disagreement with the majority opinion insofar as it holds that under the facts here involved Illinois law does not require proof of insolvency at the time of the conveyance sought to be set aside.
*818Unlike the situation in Birney v. Solomon, 348 Ill. 410, 181 N.E. 318, relied upon by the majority, where the bank, an unsecured creditor on loans extending over a period of years, required annual financial statements disclosing the merchant-debtor's assets, there was, in the instant case, no evidence of reliance by a creditor on Mrs. Snodderly’s ownership of the joint interest involved. In view of this I am of the opinion that the doctrine expressed in State Bank of Clinton v. Barnett, 250 Ill. 312, 95 N.E. 178, and reaffirmed by Laterza v. Murray, 2 Ill.2d 219, 117 N.E.2d 779 applies. And, there being no proof of insolvency of Mrs. Snodderly at the time she made the conveyance to her daughter, or of facts from which such insolvency could properly be presumed or inferred, I would reverse. The fact that the grantee in Laterza was a stranger does not in my opinion justify the majority in treating that factor as affording' a basis for distinguishing Laterza from Birney.