Lamper v. Osius

38 F. Supp. 373, 1941 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3467
CourtDistrict Court, S.D. Florida
DecidedApril 15, 1941
DocketNo. 165-M
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 38 F. Supp. 373 (Lamper v. Osius) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Lamper v. Osius, 38 F. Supp. 373, 1941 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3467 (S.D. Fla. 1941).

Opinion

HOLLAND, District Judge.

The above entitled cause having come on for hearing upon the. complaint and the answers of the defendants and the Court having heard testimony of both plaintiff and defendants and argument of counsel, and having considered the oral testimony and the documentary evidence introduced upon the trial of said cause, and being fully informed, makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:

Findings of Fact.

In the year 1929 Louise Zabransky, a widow,, was the owner and operator of a very large “beauty salon” in Miami Beach, Florida, the gross receipts from which amounted to approximately Twenty Thousand Dollars ($20,000) per annum. F. J. Osius in that year owned, among other properties, a residence property at the corner of Lincoln Road and Washington Avenue, in the same City. The Osius property was highly restricted both by convenants in his deed and by municipal zoning ordinance. In an effort to break the restrictions, Osius leased the property in 19¿9 to Louise Zabransky for an annual rental of One Thousand Eight Hundred Dollars ($1,-800) per year with the understanding that he would construct suitable business buildings thereon to accommodate her beauty salon.

In 1929 Louise Zabransky paid to Osius the sum of Four Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($4500), of which One Thousand Eight Hundred Dollars ($1,800) represented one year’s rent for the property, and Two Thousand Seven Hundred Dollars ($2,700) was an advance to Osius to enable him to construct the proposed building. Pending the proposed construction, she advanced a large additional sum for repairs to and reconditioning of the old residence building then on the property and converting it into suitable quarters for the operation of the beauty salon. (The amount of these latter advances is now incapable of proof due to loss of records in the hurricane of 1935.)

Osius failed to construct the proposed new building.

Beginning in 1930, F. J. Osius borrowed money from Louise Zabransky from time to time. Some of the loans were made directly by the issuance and delivery of checks, some were made in cash, and some were made by the payment of bills of F. J. Osius (these latter being paid at the in[375]*375stance and direction of F. J. Osius). These loans were made upon the agreement that they would be repaid with interest.

In July, 1932, F. J. Osius and Louise Zabransky were married. The loans and cash advancements were continued after marriage until the summer of 1933.

On August 4, 1933, F. J. Osius was indebted to Louise Z. Osius (formerly Louise Zabransky) in the following minimum amounts:

For advance in 1929...........$ 2,700.00

For checks payable to F. J. Osius ......................... 6,634.22

For cash 1930 to June 20, 1932.. 5,860.00

For bills paid for Osius....... 4,290.50

Total .................... $19,484.72

In the year 1930 Osius had incorporated a corporation known as “F. J. Osius Realty Company,” and had conveyed to it the property at Lincoln Road and Washington Avenue in Miami Beach.

On August 4, 1933, F. J. Osius conveyed to Louise Z. Osius his stock in the F. J. Osius Realty Company and assigned to her certain mechanical patents in payment of the sums so borrowed by him from her. She accepted the stock and patents in settlement of the sums owing to her by the said Osius.

At that time Osius owned seven other parcels of real estate in Miami and Miami Beach, including a large apartment house in Miami.

None of the patents so transferred has any market value. The property owned by the F. J. Osius Realty Company had an estimated “speculative value” at that time of Thirty-Five Thousand Dollars ($35,000) to Forty Thousand Dollars ($40,000). Said property, however, was subject to liens as follows:

Unpaid State, County and Municipal taxes and assessment liens ...................... $11,045.84

A mortgage to Mrs. Funk, Principal alone................. 5,000.00

Total, besides interest.....$16,045.84

During the period 1930-1933 and at the time of the conveyance of the stock and patents (August 4, 1933) Louise Zabransky Osius knew nothing of the business affairs or financial condition of F. J. Osius beyond the fact'that he owed large sums for taxes and that he was “hard up for cash” due to his inability to collect rents.

Upon acquisition of the stock, Louise Z. Osius began a continuous effort to sell the property of F. J. Osius Realty Company or to borrow Twenty Thousand Dollars ($20,000) to pay off the liens against it and make necessary repairs. During the remainder of 1933 she continued these efforts entirely without success. Finally, in March, 1934 (economic conditions having somewhat improved), she procured a loan of Fourteen Thousand Four Hundred Dollars ($14,400) net, by giving a first mortgage with eight per cent (8%) interest on the property, but in order to obtain such loan it was necessary for her to pay, bonuses amounting to One Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($1,500).

In November 1934 (fifteen months after the conveyance and delivery of the stock and patents to Louise Z. Osius in payment of the debts owing to her) F. J. Osius was adjudged a bankrupt. He scheduled no assets except such as were exempt.

The first meeting of creditors and examination of the bankrupt was set for November 24, 1934. Notice of the meeting was served and published as required by law. Two creditors filed proofs of their claims, but no creditors appeared to examine the bankrupt or participate in the meeting. An order was entered declaring the case to be a “no asset” case and setting aside the listed property as exempt.

F. J. Osius was residing" with Louise Z. Osius on the property of F. J. Osius Realty Company at the corner of Lincoln Road and Washington Avenue in Miami Beach at the time of his adjudication in bankruptcy and continued to reside there until he separated himself from her in 1937.

Arjen Realty Company, a Florida Corporation (the moving creditor in the instant case) was represented by R. P. Terry, its attorney. Mr. Terry received the notice of the first meeting of creditors, examined the bankrupt’s schedules and talked with the bankrupt’s attorney. Arjen Realty Company did not file any proof of claim because no assets were scheduled. Mr. Terry’s office at that time was, and ever since has been, in the same building with the Referee in Bankruptcy. Neither Arjen Realty Company nor its attorney attended the scheduled meeting of creditors, did not examine the bankrupt, and did not at that time, nor at any time for five years there[376]*376after, make any investigation or inquiry as to any transactions of F. J. Osius.

On January 18, 1935, the State Life Insurance Company of Indianapolis, Indiana (one of the two creditors who has filed proofs of claim in the bankruptcy case), filed in the bankruptcy proceeding a petition alleging that prior to the bankruptcy F. J. Osius has made the aforesaid conveyance and that said conveyance constituted a fraud against creditors. Said petition prayed that the bankrupt be brought in for examination by creditors. On the same day the Referee entered an order setting aside the original order which had declared the case to be a “no asset” case, and directing the bankrupt, F. J. Osius, to appear before the Court on January 25, 1935, then and there to submit himself to examination by his creditors.

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

Related

Azalea Meats, Inc. v. Muscat
246 F. Supp. 780 (S.D. Florida, 1965)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
38 F. Supp. 373, 1941 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3467, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lamper-v-osius-flsd-1941.