Caldarola v. Caldarola

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Caldarola v. Caldarola

275 A.D.2d 783

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedApril 18, 1949

StatusPublished

This text of 275 A.D.2d 783 (Caldarola v. Caldarola) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Caldarola v. Caldarola, 275 A.D.2d 783 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1949).

Pincite

Opinion

The complaint does not allege that there was any written agreement between plaintiff and her husband. On its face the complaint does not show that plaintiff relies on an express trust. (Real Property Law, § 96.) She pleads facts which may move equity to declare that her’ husband holds the premises as trustee for her. (Foreman v. Foreman, 251 N. Y. 237.) Respondents can claim the benefit of section 104 of the Real Property Law only in the event that plaintiff relies upon an express trust, the provisions of which have not been carried into a conveyance. The Pennsylvania statute involved in Rochester Trust Co. v. White (243 Pa. 469), cited by Special Term, specifically grants judgment creditors rights when a trustee holds property under a resulting trust. Section 95 of the Real Property Law protects only bona fide purchasers. The complaint alleges no fact which shows that respondents, through their judgment, have an equal or superior right in equity to the plaintiff. It does not appear that any reliance on the fact that title was in the name of the husband gave riáe to any claim resulting in the judgment. Prom the face of the complaint their rights are measured by whatever interest the husband had in the property. (Siemon v. Schurck, 29 N. Y. 598; White v. Carpenter, 2 Paige Ch. 217; Matter of Howe, 1 Paige Ch. 125.) Johnston, Acting P. J., Adel, Sneed, Wenzel and MaeCrate, JJ., concur. [See post, p. 846.]

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

The complaint does not allege that there was any written agreement between plaintiff and her husband. On its face the complaint does not show that plaintiff relies on an express trust. (Real Property Law, § 96.) She pleads facts which may move equity to declare that her’ husband holds the premises as trustee for her. (Foreman v. Foreman, 251 N. Y. 237.) Respondents can claim the benefit of section 104 of the Real Property Law only in the event that plaintiff relies upon an express trust, the provisions of which have not been carried into a conveyance. The Pennsylvania statute involved in Rochester Trust Co. v. White (243 Pa. 469), cited by Special Term, specifically grants judgment creditors rights when a trustee holds property under a resulting trust. Section 95 of the Real Property Law protects only bona fide purchasers. The complaint alleges no fact which shows that respondents, through their judgment, have an equal or superior right in equity to the plaintiff. It does not appear that any reliance on the fact that title was in the name of the husband gave riáe to any claim resulting in the judgment. Prom the face of the complaint their rights are measured by whatever interest the husband had in the property. (Siemon v. Schurck, 29 N. Y. 598; White v. Carpenter, 2 Paige Ch. 217; Matter of Howe, 1 Paige Ch. 125.) Johnston, Acting P. J., Adel, Sneed, Wenzel and MaeCrate, JJ., concur. [See post, p. 846.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

275 A.D.2d 783, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/caldarola-v-caldarola-nyappdiv-1949.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack