Court Opinion

ID: 9563977
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 18:51:34.939151+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:18:10.037592
License: Public Domain

HALLEY, Justice.
I concur with the majority opinion in so far as it holds that administrator did not have to be appointed in this case, but I .think the judgment of the trial court should have been affirmed in toto. Clearly the deed •given to Sam Becker by his father, George Becker, was given to defraud a subsequent creditor, the State of Oklahoma, and is clearly fraudulent as to the State. 37 C.J.S. Fraudulent Conveyances § 186b; May v. Gibler, 319 Mo. 672, 4 S.W.2d 769. However, I am of the opinion that this deed to Sam Becker from his father was a .good and valid conveyance between the two, and was only fraudulent as to the State of Oklahoma. I think the correct rule is found in 37 C.J.S. Fraudulent Conveyances § 263, which says:
“An absolute conveyance or transfer of property, although made to defraud creditors, conveys the legal and equitable titles to the grantee against all except defrauded creditors.”
It is my view that the majority opinion is incorrect in giving a one-fifth each to the four sisters. I think they should have received the one-thousand dollars each. To this extent I dissent to the majority opinion.