Opinion
01-23-1914
DEACON v. ALSHEIMER et al.
David A. Veeder, of Toms River, for complainant. Ellis L. Pierson, of Trenton, for defendants.
Bill by Joseph H. Deacon against Joseph Alsheimer and others. Decree for complainant.
David A. Veeder, of Toms River, for complainant.
Ellis L. Pierson, of Trenton, for defendants.
BACKES, V. C. The defendants, husband and wife, in 1894, purchased a home at Toms river, at a cost of $1,000. $500 was paid down, the husband and wife each contributing one-half, and the balance was secured by a mortgage. The title was taken in the husband's name. On June 30, 1909, the husband, through an intermediary, conveyed the property to his wife. Thereafter the complainant recovered a judgment in the Ocean county common pleas against the husband, and under execution levied upon the property. The bill is filed to declare the deeds fraudulent, and to set them aside. The wife was under the impression that title to the property was held by her jointly with her husband. This belief arose partly from the fact that she had paid one-half of the purchase price. At the time the conveyance was made to her, she demanded title to the whole of the fee because of a large amount of money which she had expended in improving the house, which, according to the testimony, appears to have been $935.65. The property is now worth $1,500. The increased value is due solely to the improvements made by the wife with her own money. There is no evidence to show that, minus the improvements, the property would be worth less than what was paid for it, and I shall assume this to be the fact. The judgment creditor did not advance credit to the husband upon the strength of his supposed ownership of the property, and in this respect no estoppel is raised in his favor as against the wife. The rights of the wife and those of the judgment creditor must be adjusted upon equitable principles. The equities of the creditor are those which the husband would have possessed if the deeds had not been made. The equities of the wife are those which arise by reason of the resulting trust, to the extent of one-half of the purchase price paid by her ($250), plus the value which her expenditures added to the property.Mayer v. Kane, 69 N.J.Eq. 733, 61 Atl. 374. This leaves the husband's interest at the sum which he originally invested, subject to being reduced proportionately by whatever amount the property will bring, at a sale in these proceedings, less than $1,000 over and above the mortgage. The complainant is entitled to a lien on the property to the amount of his judgment, not exceeding the sum of $250, and if, upon a sale, the property brings less than the sum stated, the lien will be reduced as indicated. A decree may be entered setting aside the conveyances to this extent, with costs.
In arriving at this conclusion, I find that the wife's separate money was used in making the improvements. She and her two sons earned it independent of her husband and their father. Coyne v. Sayre, 54 N.J.Eq. 702, 36 Atl. 96; Berla v. Meisel, 52 Atl. 999.
I also reach the conclusion that the wife is not entitled to reimbursement for moneys laid out on repairs, for interest on the mortgage and taxes, because she and her two children had the enjoyment of what these expenditures produced.