State Bank of Haines City v. Lockhart, Et Ux.

Supreme Court of Florida

State Bank of Haines City v. Lockhart, Et Ux.

162 So. 691, 120 Fla. 278, 1935 Fla. LEXIS 1383

DecidedMay 9, 1935

StatusPublished

This text of 162 So. 691 (State Bank of Haines City v. Lockhart, Et Ux.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State Bank of Haines City v. Lockhart, Et Ux., 162 So. 691, 120 Fla. 278, 1935 Fla. LEXIS 1383 (Fla. 1935).

Pincite

Opinions

Per Curiam.

The bank brought suit to subject real estate, the title being in the wife, to a judgment obtained against the husband. This appeal is from a decree for the defendants. The claim is that the wife held the title as a resulting trust for her husband.

It appears that the property was in the name of the husband when he and his wife conveyed it to another in June, 1925. Part of the consideration was paid in cash. For the balance of the purchase price notes secured by a mortgage on the property were made to the wife. When this was done the husband owed plaintiff for a loan which was afterwards paid. In 1927 the property was conveyed *279 to the wife for the return of the mortgage notes. The judgment was obtained against the husband in 1932.

In the final decree the court found “that neither the said gift of the notes and mortgage to the said Alta C. Lockhart, nor the transfer of the title to the land in satisfaction of said notes and mortgage, was or could he a fraud on the rights of the Complainant unless the record should show that the said gift of the said notes and mortgage to the Defendant, Alta C. Lockhart, in June, 1925, was made in actual anticipation of defrauding a future creditor, and it does not seem to the Court that the record would warrant such a finding, and the Court finds that it was not made with the intention of defrauding the Complainant, or any other future creditor.”

There is ample evidence to sustain such findings and the resulting decree for the defendants.

Affirmed.

Whitfield, C. J., and Brown and Davis, J. J., concur. • Ellis, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.

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

Per Curiam.

The bank brought suit to subject real estate, the title being in the wife, to a judgment obtained against the husband. This appeal is from a decree for the defendants. The claim is that the wife held the title as a resulting trust for her husband.

It appears that the property was in the name of the husband when he and his wife conveyed it to another in June, 1925. Part of the consideration was paid in cash. For the balance of the purchase price notes secured by a mortgage on the property were made to the wife. When this was done the husband owed plaintiff for a loan which was afterwards paid. In 1927 the property was conveyed *279 to the wife for the return of the mortgage notes. The judgment was obtained against the husband in 1932.

In the final decree the court found “that neither the said gift of the notes and mortgage to the said Alta C. Lockhart, nor the transfer of the title to the land in satisfaction of said notes and mortgage, was or could he a fraud on the rights of the Complainant unless the record should show that the said gift of the said notes and mortgage to the Defendant, Alta C. Lockhart, in June, 1925, was made in actual anticipation of defrauding a future creditor, and it does not seem to the Court that the record would warrant such a finding, and the Court finds that it was not made with the intention of defrauding the Complainant, or any other future creditor.”

There is ample evidence to sustain such findings and the resulting decree for the defendants.

Affirmed.

Whitfield, C. J., and Brown and Davis, J. J., concur. • Ellis, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

162 So. 691, 120 Fla. 278, 1935 Fla. LEXIS 1383, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-bank-of-haines-city-v-lockhart-et-ux-fla-1935.