Philip Henshaw v. Dane Field
670 F. App'x 563
| 9th Cir. | 2016Background
- Michael and Kimberly Henshaw transferred their interest in real property to Philip and Barbara Henshaw (their parents) in December 2009 via a 2007 deed that named all four as joint tenants.
- Debtors filed bankruptcy within two years of that transfer; insolvency at the time of transfer is not disputed.
- Trustee (Dane Field) sued under 11 U.S.C. § 548(a)(1) seeking to avoid the transfer as a constructively fraudulent transfer, arguing the debtors received less than reasonably equivalent value.
- The Henshaw Parents concede the transfer fell within the two-year window and that the debtors were insolvent, but contend extrinsic (parol) evidence creates a triable issue about the parties’ true interests and whether adequate value was received.
- The bankruptcy court held the deed unambiguous: the debtors had a 50% joint-tenant interest; parol evidence was barred; summary judgment for the trustee was entered. The district court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether extrinsic (parol) evidence may be used to vary the unambiguous 2007 deed to show the debtors had less than a full joint-tenant interest (affecting reasonably equivalent value under § 548(a)(1)) | Trustee: deed is unambiguous; debtors held 50% as joint tenants; parol evidence is barred; no reasonably equivalent value received | Henshaw Parents: deed language should be supplemented/modified by extrinsic evidence to show a different ownership arrangement, creating a triable issue on value | Court: deed unambiguous; Hawaii parol evidence rule bars extrinsic evidence in this bankruptcy avoidance action; summary judgment for trustee affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Sawada v. Endo, 57 Haw. 608 (Haw. 1977) (describing nature of joint-tenancy interests and survivorship effect)
- Midkiff v. Castle & Cooke, Inc., 45 Haw. 409 (Haw. 1962) (parol evidence cannot vary the meaning of an unambiguous deed)
- Fukunaga v. Fukunaga, 8 Haw. App. 273 (Haw. App. 1990) (parol evidence allowed to challenge substantive ownership despite deed wording in non-bankruptcy partition context)
- In re Teranis, 128 F.3d 469 (7th Cir. 1997) (bankruptcy trustees must be able to rely on the face of an unambiguous deed without resort to parol evidence)