1. FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCES — Evidence — Presumptions — Statutory Presumption of Fraud — Findings Not Rebutted — Conclusions. — Where the court found that a person, at the time he was indebted to his ex wife for child support, paid the entire purchase price of a farm and had it conveyed by the vendors to his son and daughter-in-law, as tenants by the entirety, and it was further found that at the time of the conveyance and continuously since, he had no other property subject to execution out of which the claim for child support could be collected, the facts found created a statutory presumption of fraud, and such facts not having been rebutted by any other facts found, it was error for the court to refuse to conclude that the farm was property of the debtor subject to sale on execution to satisfy the child support judgment. p. 201.
2. FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCES — Secret Parol Trust — Transaction Void as Against Creditors. — A secret parol trust for the benefit of a debtor during his lifetime and for certain of his children after his death, arising out of a transaction whereby the debtor paid the entire purchase price of a farm and had it conveyed to his son and daughter-in-law, as tenants by the entirety, was void as against creditors. p. 201.
RICHMAN, J.
Appellee John Probst with $2,200 of his own money paid the entire purchase price of a farm and had it conveyed by the vendors to his son and daughter-in-law, appellees 1, 2. Orville and Freda Probst, as tenants by the entirety. At the time he was indebted in a sum exceeding $2,500 to his former wife, appellant Anna Probst, on an order made in their divorce proceeding for payment to her of $10 per week for the support of their minor children, which indebtedness later in this action was reduced to judgment in the sum of $2,500 and costs. The trial court found these facts and the further fact that at the time of the conveyance and continuously since, John had no other property subject to execution out of which appellant's claim could or can be collected. The trial court did not find fraud as a fact but the facts found created a statutory presumption of fraud which was not rebutted by any facts found. The court erroneously refused to conclude from these facts that the farm was property of John Probst subject to sale on execution to satisfy appellant's judgment. § 56-606 and § 56-607, Burns' 1933, § 14739 and § 14740, Baldwin's 1934, Eiler v. Crull (1887), 112 Ind. 318, 14 N.E. 79; Pence v. Rhonemus (1915), 58 Ind. App. 268, 108 N.E. 129; York v. Rockwood (1892), 132 Ind. 358, 31 N.E. 1110. The record discloses as the only explanation of the transaction evidence of a secret parol trust for the benefit of John during his lifetime and for certain of his children after his death. This was void as against creditors. § 56-601, Burns' 1933, § 14734, Baldwin's 1934.
Judgment reversed with instructions to restate the conclusions of law and to enter judgment for appellant in accordance with the prayer of her second amended and supplemental complaint.
NOTE. — Reported in 41 N.E.2d 608.