From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Valenti v. Valenti

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 26, 1951
279 App. Div. 677 (N.Y. App. Div. 1951)

Summary

reversing trial court's dismissal of claim seeking to impress trust upon real property because, although trial court concluded that property had been transferred with intent to defraud state of estate tax upon father's death, there was no evidence upon which it could be determined whether there was estate tax due on father's estate, and thus “no proof that there existed a debt or charge which could have been hindered or delayed, nor that there was a creditor who could be defrauded”

Summary of this case from Shattuck v. Peck

Opinion

November 26, 1951.


Action to impress a trust upon real property. The father of the parties died intestate seized of the property, which was conveyed to respondent by appellants and their brothers. Judgment has been entered, after trial by the court, dismissing the complaint upon the ground that the deed was executed with the intent and purpose of defrauding the State of the estate tax upon the father's estate. Judgment reversed upon the law and the facts and a new trial granted, with costs to appellants to abide the event. The evidence in this record of the conversations and transactions between the parties prior to the execution and delivery of the deed is sharply disputed and contradictory, and there is no finding by the trial court stating which version thereof is credited. There is no evidence upon which it may be determined whether or not there was an estate tax due upon the father's estate, and, hence, no proof that there existed a debt or charge which could have been hindered or delayed, nor that there was a creditor who could be defrauded. (Restatement, Trusts, § 63, p. 200; Tiedemann v. Tiedemann, 201 App. Div. 614, affd. 236 N.Y. 534; Kremer v. v. Kremer, 51 N.Y.S.2d 394, affd. 269 App. Div. 827; Baker v. Gilman, 52 Barb. 26.) Moreover, had there been proof establishing that an estate tax was payable on the father's estate, the conveyance in question would not have defeated its collection. (Tax Law, § 249-bb.) Nolan, P.J., Carswell, Johnston, Sneed and Wenzel, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Valenti v. Valenti

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 26, 1951
279 App. Div. 677 (N.Y. App. Div. 1951)

reversing trial court's dismissal of claim seeking to impress trust upon real property because, although trial court concluded that property had been transferred with intent to defraud state of estate tax upon father's death, there was no evidence upon which it could be determined whether there was estate tax due on father's estate, and thus “no proof that there existed a debt or charge which could have been hindered or delayed, nor that there was a creditor who could be defrauded”

Summary of this case from Shattuck v. Peck
Case details for

Valenti v. Valenti

Case Details

Full title:SALAVATORE VALENTI et al., Appellants, v. VITO VALENTI, Respondent

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Nov 26, 1951

Citations

279 App. Div. 677 (N.Y. App. Div. 1951)

Citing Cases

Trager v. Vigliotti

We disagree with the learned Justice at Trial Term insofar as he ruled that plaintiff Trager was estopped…

Shattuck v. Peck

See, e.g., Steele v. Lannon, 355 So.2d 190, 192 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1978) (requiring more than bad motive or…