Tobalski v. Welliver

Lycoming County Court of Common Pleas

Tobalski v. Welliver

18 Pa. D. & C.2d 483, 1959 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 265

CourtPennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Lycoming County

DecidedFebruary 26, 1959

Docketno. 2

StatusPublished

This text of 18 Pa. D. & C.2d 483 (Tobalski v. Welliver) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Lycoming County primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Tobalski v. Welliver, 18 Pa. D. & C.2d 483, 1959 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 265 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1959).

Pincite

Opinion

Williams, P. J.,

Plaintiff has in equity sued Harvey R. Welliver and Jenny M. Wei-[484]*484liver, husband and wife, alleging that on February 25, 1957, Harvey R. Welliver was indebted to plaintiff in the amount of $3,667.40, and that on that date both Welliver and his wife were owners by the entireties of land in Jordan Township, Lycoming County, and on the same date Harvey R. Welliver transferred all of his interest in said land to his wife, Jennie M. Welliver. The complaint alleges that on February 28, the said real estate action was recorded in Lycoming County and that by reason of such transfer Harvey R. Welliver was rendered insolvent. Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the only consideration shown in the deed was “love and affection,” and that the transfer was fraudulent as to plaintiff. Plaintiff asked the court to set aside the transfer and to declare ownership of the land in both defendants, and also asked the court to enjoin Harvey R. Welliver from again disposing of his interest without a fair consideration.

Defendants have demurred to this complaint alleging in the preliminary objections that the complaint fails to state a cause of action in that it does not allege any facts which constitute the conveyance fraudulent and for the further reason that paragraph 9 of the complaint which alleges that the transfer by Harry R. Welliver was fraudulent as to plaintiff, has no significance since it merely states a conclusion of law.

According to the pleadings the property was held as tenants by the entireties. This being so defendants could convey out their rights even though one of them did owe money. Where a tenancy by the entireties exists, the law is not concerned with the motive which prompts its exercise: C. I. T. Corporation v. Flint, 333 Pa. 350.

And now, February 26, 1959, it is ordered and decreed that the bill be dismissed, the prothonotary to give notice of this decree and if no exceptions are filed within 20 days of such notice, this decree shall be final.

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

Williams, P. J.,

Plaintiff has in equity sued Harvey R. Welliver and Jenny M. Wei-[484]*484liver, husband and wife, alleging that on February 25, 1957, Harvey R. Welliver was indebted to plaintiff in the amount of $3,667.40, and that on that date both Welliver and his wife were owners by the entireties of land in Jordan Township, Lycoming County, and on the same date Harvey R. Welliver transferred all of his interest in said land to his wife, Jennie M. Welliver. The complaint alleges that on February 28, the said real estate action was recorded in Lycoming County and that by reason of such transfer Harvey R. Welliver was rendered insolvent. Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the only consideration shown in the deed was “love and affection,” and that the transfer was fraudulent as to plaintiff. Plaintiff asked the court to set aside the transfer and to declare ownership of the land in both defendants, and also asked the court to enjoin Harvey R. Welliver from again disposing of his interest without a fair consideration.

Defendants have demurred to this complaint alleging in the preliminary objections that the complaint fails to state a cause of action in that it does not allege any facts which constitute the conveyance fraudulent and for the further reason that paragraph 9 of the complaint which alleges that the transfer by Harry R. Welliver was fraudulent as to plaintiff, has no significance since it merely states a conclusion of law.

According to the pleadings the property was held as tenants by the entireties. This being so defendants could convey out their rights even though one of them did owe money. Where a tenancy by the entireties exists, the law is not concerned with the motive which prompts its exercise: C. I. T. Corporation v. Flint, 333 Pa. 350.

And now, February 26, 1959, it is ordered and decreed that the bill be dismissed, the prothonotary to give notice of this decree and if no exceptions are filed within 20 days of such notice, this decree shall be final.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

18 Pa. D. & C.2d 483, 1959 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 265, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tobalski-v-welliver-pactcompllycomi-1959.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack