62 A.D.2d 1154 | N.Y. App. Div. | 1978
Order unanimously affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: Plaintiff is the former wife of defendant Robert Bennett who now resides in Florida with his present wife, defendant Helen Bennett. On April 23, 1968 Robert and Helen Bennett purchased realty in Geneva, New York, as tenants by the entirety. On October 24, 1973 Robert Bennett, by quit claim deed, conveyed his interest in the property to Helen Bennett. At the time of the conveyance he was in arrears of support and alimony payments to plaintiff pursuant to a separation agreement which had been incorporated, but not merged, into a Mexican divorce decree obtained by Robert Bennett in 1966. Plaintiff commenced this action to set aside the conveyance and a notice of pendency was filed in the Ontario County clerk’s office on March 4, 1976. The complaint was served upon the defendants on March 24, 1976 and the answer was submitted on April 2, 1976. It appears that nothing further was done in the action until the defendants served the subject motion papers in March 1977 seeking cancellation of the notice of pendency. Special Term denied defendants’ motion, and defendants appeal. They argue that the action is not one in which a lis pendens may be filed. It is urged that the underlying purpose of the suit is to enforce defendant Robert Bennett’s personal contractual obligations under the separation agreement and is thus unrelated to the Geneva realty. They also contend that the lis pendens should be canceled because the action has not been diligently pursued. Accepting as we must, the truth of plaintiff’s allegations (Gross v Castleton Housing Corp., 271 App Div 980), we find that the complaint satisfies the requirements of article 10 of the Debtor and Creditor Law in asserting a cause of action to set aside a fraudulent conveyance (see Rush v Rush, 19 AD2d 846). She has alleged that she was at the time of the conveyance, and remains, a "creditor” of the defendant Robert Bennett (see Debtor and Creditor Law, §§ 270, 278, 279; Enthoven v Enthoven, 167 Misc 686, affd 256 App Div 813); that he conveyed his interest in realty without receiving fair consideration (see Debtor and Creditor Law, § 272); and that the conveyance was made for the purpose of creating an asset position whereby the defendant Robert Bennett would be unable to pay his debts to plaintiff (see Debtor