Thompson v. Spint

430 P.2d 1014, 247 Or. 484, 1967 Ore. LEXIS 507
CourtOregon Supreme Court
DecidedAugust 23, 1967
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 430 P.2d 1014 (Thompson v. Spint) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Oregon Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Thompson v. Spint, 430 P.2d 1014, 247 Or. 484, 1967 Ore. LEXIS 507 (Or. 1967).

Opinion

O’CONNELL, J.

This is a suit to quiet title brought against Edward Spint and Donna Mae Spint, his former wife. Defendant Edward Spint alone answered. He prays that he and Donna Mae Spint be adjudged tenants in common in the property in dispute. He appeals from a decree for plaintiff.

The record reveals that Edward Spint and Donna Spint conveyed the property in question to plaintiff, the mother of Donna Spint, for the purpose of placing the property beyond the reach of creditors of both defendants. Defendant Edward Spint contends that he was not an active participant in the attempt to defeat creditors and signed the deed merely as an accommodation to Donna, his spouse at that time. He asks that a constructive trust be imposed upon plaintiff as to an undivided one-half interest which he claims as a tenant in common with Donna Mae Spint.

The trial court found that defendant Edward Spint participated in the scheme to defeat creditors and that this participation barred him from equitable relief under the clean hands doctrine. We have reached the same conclusion.

Defendant argues on appeal that we should apply the rule laid down in Hanscom v. Irwin, 186 Or 541, 208 P2d 330 (1949) to the effect that where there are no actual creditors to be defrauded the clean hands doctrine will not be applied. There is nothing in the record of the present case from which we could determine whether the rule in Hanscom v. Irwin, supra, is applicable.

*486 The trial court granted the relief prayed for in plaintiff’s complaint, apparently on the ground that plaintiff did not participate in the scheme to defraud creditors. However, we interpret the evidence to show that plaintiff was an active participant in the fraudulent scheme. Therefore, she too should he denied relief under the clean hands doctrine. We so hold.

The decree of the trial court is reversed and the cause is remanded with directions to enter a decree dismissing plaintiff’s complaint and denying the relief prayed for in defendant Edward Spint’s affirmative answer. Neither party shall recover costs.

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

Related

Hughes v. Ephrem
365 P.3d 613 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 2015)
Osborne v. Nottley
136 P.3d 81 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 2006)
McKinley v. Weidner
698 P.2d 983 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1985)
Kirkland v. Mannis
639 P.2d 671 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1982)
North Pacific Lumber Co. v. Oliver
596 P.2d 931 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1979)
Community Bank v. Jones
566 P.2d 470 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1977)
Oliphant v. French
472 P.2d 275 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1970)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
430 P.2d 1014, 247 Or. 484, 1967 Ore. LEXIS 507, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thompson-v-spint-or-1967.