White Plains Savings Bank v. Sam and Al Realty Co., Inc., 26 N.Y.2d 20 (1970)

A judgment creditor of a grantor who allegedly fraudulently conveyed property to the holder of the equity of redemption has a sufficient interest to intervene in a mortgage foreclosure action involving that property, especially when the referee makes unauthorized payments affecting potential surplus funds.

Summary

Nesmith, a judgment creditor of Sam and A1 Realty Co., Inc., and Vucker, a holder of a promissory note from the same company, sought to intervene in a mortgage foreclosure action. They alleged that Sam and A1 Realty fraudulently conveyed the property to White Plains Realty Co., Inc., rendering Sam and A1 Realty judgment proof. The referee in the foreclosure action paid taxes from the sale proceeds, contrary to the foreclosure judgment stating the sale would be “subject to unpaid taxes.” Nesmith and Vucker argued this payment reduced surplus funds they could potentially claim. The lower courts denied their motion to intervene, deeming their interest too remote. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the creditors had a sufficient interest to intervene, especially given the referee’s unauthorized payment.

Facts

Sam and A1 Realty Co., Inc. conveyed real property to White Plains Realty Co., Inc., a newly formed corporation. Nesmith was a judgment creditor of Sam and A1 Realty, and Vucker held a promissory note from them. Nesmith and Vucker claimed the conveyance was fraudulent, rendering Sam and A1 Realty judgment proof. White Plains Savings Bank initiated a mortgage foreclosure action on the property now held by White Plains Realty. The foreclosure judgment ordered the referee to sell the property “subject to unpaid taxes.” After the sale, the referee paid the mortgage claim and other costs, then used the remaining funds to pay taxes and tax liens against the property.

Procedural History

The plaintiff moved to confirm the referee’s report of sale. Nesmith and Vucker moved to intervene, opposing the motion on the grounds that the referee wrongfully paid taxes contrary to the foreclosure judgment. Special Term denied the motion to intervene, stating it lacked the power to permit intervention because the applicants were not direct creditors of the record holder of the equity of redemption, and the holder did not object. The Appellate Division affirmed, holding the appellants’ interest was too remote. The Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal and certified the question of whether the Appellate Division’s order was correctly made.

Issue(s)

Whether the interest of judgment creditors of a grantor who allegedly fraudulently conveyed property to the holder of the equity of redemption is too remote to allow them to intervene in a mortgage foreclosure action involving that property.

Holding

No, because the judgment creditors have a sufficient interest in potential surplus funds resulting from the sale, especially when the referee makes unauthorized payments that could affect the amount of those funds.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals relied on Goodell v. Harrington, 76 N.Y. 547 (1879), which held that a judgment creditor of the equity holder’s grantor could intervene in a similar situation. The Court reasoned that because the property constituted a fund from which the intervenor might satisfy his judgment if he prevailed on the fraudulent conveyance claim, the interest was sufficient. The Court found the present case analogous to Goodell, stating, “The intervenor in both cases is a creditor of the person who has conveyed the subject property, allegedly by a fraudulent conveyance, to the holder of the equity of redemption.” The Court emphasized that the referee’s payment of taxes, contrary to the foreclosure judgment, was an act beyond his power. This unauthorized payment directly affected the potential surplus money to which the creditors might have a claim. The Court concluded that the lower courts erred in holding they lacked the power to allow intervention, and reversed the order confirming the referee’s report. The court emphasized that the property represented a potential fund for satisfying the creditors’ claims, making their interest direct and substantial enough to warrant intervention.