Braecklein v. McNamara

Urner, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The appellees are judgment creditor’s of Dr. Alfred H. Braedklein, one of the appellants, and have obtained a decree avoiding as to their claims certain deeds by which the title to a house and lot in Baltimore, previously owned by the debtor,,was vested in himself and his wife, the other appellant, as tenants by the entireties. The suit was defended on the ground that the transfer of the title was- made in pursuance and consideration of an antenuptial agreement. It is to be determined on this appeal whether the defense should be sustained on the evidence in the record.

The marriage of the appellants occurred on June 7th, 19'22. By a deed dated May 27, 1922, Dr. Braecldein conveyed his home property to William D. O’Keefe and wife, who immediately conveyed it to both of the appellants, as tenants .by the entireties, by a deed which Was postdated ¹⁹ June 12th, 1922, with a view to having it take effect after they were married. The first deed was recorded on June 3rd and the second on June 15th, 1922. Each of the deeds recited that it was executed in consideration of five dollars anfi “other good and valuable considerations.” The judgments of the appellees were procured in suits brought after the execution of the deeds.

It was testified by Isaac T. Parks, Esquire, of the Baltimore Bar, by whom the deeds were prepared, that he was visited previously by D'r. Braecklein, who said he was about to he married and had “a piece of property” which he had agreed with his prospective wife to have conveyed to them as tenants by the entireties before the wedding. In answer to a question as to what was the real consideration for the deeds, Mr. Parks said: “The doctor told me he had agreed as .a part of the marriage contract with his wife to convey this property.” Dr. Braecklein testified to the effect that about the first of March, 1922, when he became engaged to his present wife, he ■entered into a verbal agreement with her that in consideration of their marriage she should have the property which is now in litigation. For that consideration alone, he said, the deeds were executed.

He owned .at that time other real estate which he sold in ETovemiber, 1922, for approximately one thousand dollars. According to his testimony he did not believe, at the time of the conveyances in question, that he was indebted to either of the appellees, hut regarded each of them as his debtor for professional services which he had rendered. Mrs. Braecklein, in her testimony, said it was agreed between Dr. Braecklein .and herself, about the first of March, 1922, that she was to have his dwelling house in consideration of their marriage, and she further stated that she had no knowledge of his being indebted alt the time of the agreement of conveyance, but was informed by him to the contrary. Anton Braecklein, a brother of the doctor, testified that he was present .at an interview between the appellants, prior ²⁰ ■to their marriage, in which the agreement for the wife to-have the home property of the husband was ' effected.

The fact of such an agreement is proved also by the testimony of Mrs. Breitenooher, an. aunt of Mrs. Braeeklein. It was agreed at the trial that if Mrs. O’Keefe were present, she would testify that she .and her husband accepted from Dr. Braeeklein a deed for the property involved in this suit, and conveyed it to the appellants as tenants by the entireties “in pursuance of a marriage contract.” Mr. O’Keefe was called as a witness and stated: “The only thing I know about the property is the fact that Mrs. Braeeklein called my wife,, they were sisters, and asked me if we wouldn’t go to Mr. Parks’ office located in the Law Building and sign the deed of a piece of property located on Charles Street and in return deed the property back to Mr. and Mrs. Braeeklein after they became man and wife. We signed both papers at the same time.” Mo evidence was offered by the plaintiff in opposition to the testimony of the defendants and their witnesses1, in regard to the existence of the alleged pre-nuptial agreement. In our opinion the affirmative proof in the case justifies the conclusion that such an agreement was made and that the prospective marriage of the parties w'as included in the “good .and valuable considerations” which the disputed deeds recite.

The transfer of the title to the husband and wife as tenants by -the entireties, rather than to the wife alone,, does not