## Facts

- A husband, a general contractor needing working capital, conveyed six parcels of real estate to his wife by a deed absolute on its face (1941).
- The conveyance was made to expand borrowing capacity by establishing a separate credit line in the wife’s name, not to make a gift.
- Four parcels were improved and rented; two were unimproved.
- After marital difficulties and estrangement, the wife asserted that the husband later orally “settled” the six parcels on her outright (1943), extinguishing any prior trust.
- The husband filed an equity action seeking restoration of the properties on the theory that the wife held title in trust for him.
- The wife opposed the claim and pursued a counterclaim for affirmative relief.

## Issues

1. Whether the presumption that a husband’s conveyance of land to his wife is a voluntary settlement (gift) was rebutted by proof that the wife held the properties in trust for the husband.
2. Whether an alleged later oral “voluntary settlement” transferring the husband’s beneficial interest in land to the wife was effective notwithstanding the Statute of Frauds.

## Decision

- The court held the evidence rebutted the presumption of a gift and established, by clear and convincing proof, that the wife held the parcels for the husband’s use pursuant to the parties’ understanding.
- The court held the alleged 1943 oral settlement was unenforceable because declarations or creations of trusts or beneficial interests in land must be evidenced by a signed writing under the Statute of Frauds.
- The decree was reversed insofar as it dismissed the husband’s complaint; the decree on the wife’s counterclaim was affirmed; and the matter was remanded for further proceedings consistent with these rulings.

## Legal Principles

- A conveyance from husband to wife is presumed to be a voluntary settlement, but the presumption may be overcome by clear and convincing evidence showing lack of donative intent and a contrary purpose.
- A court may recognize beneficial ownership inconsistent with an absolute deed when the evidence clearly shows the titleholder was to hold for another’s use.
- The Statute of Frauds renders void oral declarations or creations of trusts or beneficial interests in land unless manifested and proved by a signed writing (subject to limited exceptions not applicable to an asserted oral “settlement” of land).
- An alleged oral reallocation of beneficial ownership in real property cannot be enforced when it would amount to an unwritten transfer or declaration of a trust interest in land.

## Conclusion

The court treated the wife’s title as held for the husband’s benefit because the deed was executed to expand credit rather than as a gift, and it refused to enforce the wife’s claim that a later oral “settlement” transferred the husband’s beneficial interest to her because such an oral disposition of land is barred by the Statute of Frauds.


Moses v. Moses, 140 N.J. Eq. 575, 53 A.2d 805 (N.J. Ct. Err. & App. 1947)