Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

TAYLOR v. KAUFHOLD (11/08/54)

November 8, 1954

TAYLOR
v.
KAUFHOLD, APPELLANT.



Appeal, No. 150, March T., 1954, from decree of Court of Common Pleas of Erie County, May T., 1952, in Equity, No. 6, in case of Forest R. Taylor and W. Louis Schlesinger v. Henry Kaufhold et ux. Decree affirmed. Bill in equity. Before LAUB, J. Adjudication filed finding for plaintiffs and against both defendants; exceptions to adjudication dismissed and final decree entered. Defendant wife appealed.

COUNSEL

John A. Spaeder, with him Marsh, Spaeder, Baur & Spaeder, for appellant.

Frank B. Quinn, with him William E. Pfadt, Paul A. Stephany, Howard, N. Plate and Quinn, Leemhuis, Plate & Dwyer, for appellees.

Before Stearne, Jones, Chidsey, Musmanno and Arnold, JJ.

Author: Jones

[ 379 Pa. Page 192]

OPINION BY MR. JUSTICE JONES

This is the fourth time that some aspect of a single business transaction between Forest R. Taylor and Henry Kaufhold has been before the appellate courts of this State. In order of chronology the three prior cases are to be found reported at 160 Pa. Superior Ct. 101, 360 Pa. 372, and 368 Pa. 538.

As matters now stand, Kaufhold is in voluntary bankruptcy and Taylor is his judgment creditor. The present appeal is from the final decree in an equity proceeding instituted by Taylor and the trustee of Kaufhold's estate in bankruptcy against Kaufhold and his wife, Amalia, for appropriate relief under the provisions of the Uniform Fraudulent Conveyance Act of May 21, 1921, P.L. 1045, 39 PS ยง 351 et seq. A specific purpose of the bill was to subject to Taylor's judgment

[ 379 Pa. Page 193]

    against Kaufhold certain real estate held by Kaufhold and his wife as tenants by the entireties. The bill alleged that the real estate was purchased with assets that were the individual property of Kaufhold and that title was taken by the entireties in order to defraud Kaufhold's creditors. From the evidence adduced at a hearing on the complaint, the chancellor made appropriate findings of fact from which he drew relevant conclusions of law and accordingly entered a decree nisi subjecting the jointly held real estate to a pro tanto charge in favor of Kaufhold's creditors. Kaufhold, himself, filed no exceptions to the adjudication or decree nisi. Exceptions filed by his wife, Amalia, were dismissed by the court en banc which confirmed the chancellor's findings and entered a final decree in terms similar to the decree nisi. This appeal by Amalia Kaufhold followed.

The only question before us is whether the learned court below erred in subjecting the jointly held real estate of the husband and wife to a pro tanto charge on account of the claims of creditors of the husband. The relevant facts as found by the chancellor and as confirmed by the court en banc need be recited.

Prior to 1935, Henry and Amalia Kaufhold were the owners of a bank account as tenants by the entireties. In that year, the husband, using funds from the joint account, purchased the Arcade Cafe in Erie, taking title to the business and the liquor license in his individual name. With the knowledge and consent of his wife, Kaufhold operated the cafe in his own name until 1943 when he sold the business to Forest R. Taylor. Meanwhile, in January ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.