Alaniz v. Casenave

In Alaniz v. Casenave (1891) 91 Cal. 41, the trial court found that plaintiff had conveyed certain real property to her son-in-law so that he could manage it for her. (Id. at pp. 44-45.) On appeal, the son-in-law argued that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover the property because she had acted with the intent of defrauding creditors. (Id. at p. 47.) The Supreme Court disagreed. It explained that the plaintiff "feared that some heirs of her father might assert some kind of a claim against her which would compel her, as she says, 'to come and go,' and she did not wish to have the trouble. Thereupon the defendant, her son-in-law and agent, proposed that she convey to him, and he would take the trouble of the defense off her hands. She testifies that she did not fear any claim that her father's heirs might prefer, and that she so stated at the time. There is no evidence that the claims were asserted against her or her property, or could have been. . . . Courts will not allow a trust to be proven by a party to the fraud, if the trust was created for a fraudulent purpose, but before it will deny relief upon that ground, there should be proof that some one was to be defrauded. Here there is no proof of a claim which it was intended to defeat, or that any creditor or claimant of any kind existed." (Alaniz v. Casenave, supra, 91 Cal. at p. 47.)