Bryan v. Wilson

Johnson, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This is an appeal from a decree passed by the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County, in equity, setting aside a conveyance made by Samuel B. Bryan and Florence J. Bryan on October 10th, 19.35, to William Walter Roberts, to the .extent necessary to satisfy appellee’s claim, any surplus remaining thereafter to be paid to Roberts. The bill of complaint, upon which the decree was founded, alleges that the conveyance was made by Bryan and wife to Roberts fraudulently and for “simulated and pretended considerations,” also that it was made to “hinder, delay and defraud” the plaintiff, a creditor of the Bryans. The defendants answered, denying the material allegations of the bill and asserting that the conveyance was made “for valuable considerations represented by money loaned and money paid” by Roberts to Bryan and wife, and for other expenditures made by the grantee on their behalf.

Under the provisions of section 278 of article 16 of the Code, testimony on behalf of the parties was taken orally in open court before the chancellor, and, except as to the value of the property in question, there is little dispute upon the facts. On October 6th, 1925, the Bryans executed to Frederick W. Loos and wife a note for $2,000, secured by a second ⁴²³ mortgage upon four lots on Kramme Shores, Anne Arundel Cbunty, which mortgage and mortgage note were by Loos and wife assigned to appellee on October 2nd, 1935, at which time the debt secured thereby had been due for approximately five years. On the following day, the assignee instituted an action at law in the Circuit Court for that county against Bryan and wife upon the mortgage note, and on December 20th, secured judgment against them upon that obligation for $2,350, while, in December of the same year, the first mortgage upon that property was foreclosed and brought an amount insufficient to settle the same. Another parcel of land, containing one and nine-tenth acres, owned by Bryan and wife, located near Pumphrey Station in the same county, was unencumbered, and this property was conveyed by the Bryans to Roberts, a son of Mrs. Bryan, by deed dated and executed on October 10th, 1935.

It is the last-mentioned conveyance which is here attacked. The grantors, as well as the grantee, testified that the consideration for this conveyance, which in the deed is stated as “natural love and affection and other good and valuable considerations,” was represented by certain cash loans made by the son to the mother between August, 1933, and the date the deed was signed, and, while no memorandum was made as to the dates nor amounts of such loans, the Bryans, as well as Roberts, fix their aggregate at from five hundred to six hundred dollars. The grantee, who denied any knowledge that the Bryans were indebted to plaintiff, took no part in arranging to have the deed prepared, and was not present when it was executed, although he testified that in August, 1935, his mother told him that his stepfather had suggested deeding the property to him. Appellee in no manner called upon Bryan and wife for settlement prior to bringing the suit, and, although the sheriff’s return shows that they were both summoned on October 7th, they each denied having been summoned until October 11th, the day after the deed was executed.

Moreover, the attorney who prepared the deed testified that Mrs. Bryan, on October 3rd, which is the same day ⁴²⁴ the suit was filed, spoke to him about the matter, and, as he was then quite busy he told her to return with her husband a few days later and the deed would be ready. The pertinent sections of article 39B of the Cbde, and 13 Stat. Eliz., chapter 5, and the decisions of this court thereunder relative to conveyances of this character, were so exhaustively reviewed in an opinion by Judge