Thank You For Submiting Feedback!
Or. Rev. Stat. § 95.070 provides: Every conveyance of any estate or interest in lands made with the intent to hinder, delay or defraud creditors or other persons of their lawful suits, damages, forfeitures, debts or demands, as against the person so hindered, delayed or defrauded is void.
The wife, her husband, and his mother were named buyers in a land sale contract. In anticipation of their divorce, the wife and her husband deeded their interest to the father-in-law. The wife brought an action for partition following a divorce decree awarding all title and interest in the property to the wife. The mother-in-law then deeded her interest to the father-in-law who, in turn, filed a pleading to be decreed sole owner. The circuit court decreed that the wife owned two-thirds and the father-in-law owned one-third of the equitable interest in the land. The father-in-law sought review of the judgment.
Did the wife own an undivided one-half equitable interest in the property, notwithstanding the conveyance by deed of interest to the father-in-law?
The court on appeal affirmed the trial court's judgment, but modified the division. The court held that the wife and her husband had an equitable interest in the property. According to the court, the conveyance by deed of their interest to the father-in-law was void as it was obtained by fraud to hinder or prevent the wife's recovery of her husband's equitable interest in the property in the divorce suit; and their interest under the contract was taken as tenants by the entirety. Accordingly, by virtue of the divorce decree awarding the wife all of her husband's interest, she held an undivided one-half equitable interest under the land sale contract.