Summary
The Oklahoma Supreme Court considered whether a deed from a debtor to his sister was a fraudulent conveyance intended to hinder or delay creditors. The court held that the evidence supported a fair and valuable consideration for the transfer and affirmed the trial court's judgment for the defendants.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the deed from O.B. Linkhart to Elsie M. Linkhart was supported by a fair and valuable consideration.
- Whether the evidence established that the deed was made in fraud of creditors and required cancellation.
- Whether the trial court's judgment for defendants was against the clear weight of the evidence.
Holdings
- The evidence was sufficient to support a finding that the deed was given for a fair and valuable consideration, namely partial satisfaction of O.B. Linkhart's debt to Elsie M. Linkhart.
- The evidence did not require a finding that the deed was made in bad faith or for the purpose of hindering, delaying, or preventing Briscoe from collecting his debt.
Key quotations
“Under the record we cannot say that the judgment of the trial court is against the clear weight of the evidence.” (4)
Factual background
O.B. Linkhart conveyed an undivided one-half interest in 120 acres of Cleveland County land to his sister, Elsie M. Linkhart. Briscoe alleged that O.B. was insolvent and that the deed was intended to hinder or delay collection of Briscoe's debt, while Elsie asserted that the deed was given in partial satisfaction of loans she had made to O.B. The evidence showed that Elsie had loaned O.B. substantial sums, that O.B. had agreed to convey the land in exchange for a $1,000 credit against his indebtedness, and that the land interest was worth no more than approximately $600.
Procedural history
Briscoe sued to cancel a deed from O.B. Linkhart to Elsie M. Linkhart, alleging that the conveyance was made without consideration and to hinder, delay, and defraud creditors. After a trial, the court found for the defendants. The Supreme Court of Oklahoma affirmed, concluding that the judgment was not against the clear weight of the evidence.