What is the Uniform Voidable Transactions Act?

Useful Rulings on Uniform Voidable Transactions Act

Recent Rulings on Uniform Voidable Transactions Act

SUN V. WU

Civil Code section 3439.04 provides in part, “ (a) A transfer made or obligation incurred by a debtor is voidable as to a creditor, whether the creditor's claim arose before or after the transfer was made or the obligation was incurred, if the debtor made the transfer or incurred the obligation as follows: [¶] (1) With actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud any creditor of the debtor. [¶] (2) Without receiving a reasonably equivalent value in exchange for the transfer or obligation, and the debtor either

  • Hearing

FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY V. HOROWITZ

The panel found that this transfer was voidable within the meaning of Civil Code section 3439.04, subdivision (a)(2)(A), “. . . because there was not reasonably equivalent value.” (Meleski Decl., ¶ 2 and Exhibit A (Arbitration Award, p. 24; see also, Arbitration Award, p. 27.).) Thus, the Arbitration Award addressed and resolved the issue as to whether the transfer of this 38% interest by Brown II was a voidable transfer.

  • Hearing

DEAN J. ZAMANI VS. JOHN DINOVI, ET AL

On November 14, 2011, Plaintiff filed a complaint for Breach of Contract, Fraud, Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act, and Violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200. On January 19, 2012, Dinovi filed a cross-complaint against Zamani and Zamani Enterprises for Declaratory Relief, Breach of Contract, Common Counts, and Defamation. Zamani Enterprises was dismissed from the cross-complaint on March 16, 2012. The court granted Plaintiff leave to file a first amended complaint on January 23, 2014.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

OSCAR MARTINEZ, ET AL. VS GENERAL MOTORS LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

The transfer of an asset is fraudulent under the UVTA if it was made either “[w]ith actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud any creditor of the debtor[,]” or “[w]ithout receiving a reasonably equivalent value in exchange for the transfer ....” (Civ. Code, § 3439.04(a).) The transfer of an asset is fraudulent under the UVTA if it was made “[w]ith actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud any creditor of the debtor.” (Civ. Code, § 3439.04(a).)

  • Hearing

ROSA HERRERA VS JOSE ONTIVEROS JR, ET AL.

The UVTA, formerly known as the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act, ‘permits defrauded creditors to reach property in the hands of a transferee.’ ‘A fraudulent conveyance is a transfer by the debtor of property to a third person undertaken with the intent to prevent a creditor from reaching that interest to satisfy its claim.’ . . .

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

BEN GOLUB VS RAFIK MGAIETH

Code § 3439.04) C/A 2: Constructive Fraudulent Transfer-No Reasonably Equivalent Value Received (Civ. Code §3439.04(a)(2)) C/A 3: Constructive Fraudulent Transfer-Insolvency (Civ. Code §3439.05) C/A 4: Conspiracy to Defraud In May 2014 Plaintiff was hired by 2 U Turn Restaurant LLC (2 U Turn) as a chef. Defendant is a member in 2 U Turn. In 2014, Plaintiff became a creditor of 2 U Turn, which closed its business operations in September, 2014.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

AMAG INC, VS MARC ANTHONY CUBAS, ET AL.

The applicable statute of limitations for AMAG’s UVTA claim is, of course, the statute of limitations found in the UVTA. Civil Code section 3439.09(a) states that a UVTA claim must be brought “not later than four years after the transfer made … or, if later, not later than one year after the transfer … was or could reasonably have been discovered by the claimant.” (Civ. Code § 3439.09(a).)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

JUDITH M. HALL V. JAVIER JONATHAN ANTUNEZ, ET AL.

Further, she argues that under Civil Code section 3439.04(a)(1), actual fraud is shown where the debtor made the transfer or incurred the obligation with actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud any creditor of the debtor. Factors that may be considered in determining intent include whether the debtor had been sued or threatened with suit at the time the transfer was made or the obligation incurred.

  • Hearing

BARBARA GATLIN VS DELLITA JOHNSON ET AL

Civil Code, section 3439.09, subdivisions (a) and (b) provide in part that an action by a creditor against a debtor for relief against a transfer or obligation under the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (“UFTA”) is extinguished unless the action is brought “within four years after the transfer was made or the obligation was incurred.” (Civ. Code, § 3439.09; Cortez v. Vogt (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 917, 919 (Cortez).)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

THE BEST SERVICE CO. VS MITSUMASA OKAMOTO-ET AL

“A creditor who is damaged by a transfer described in either Civil Code section 3439.04 or Civil Code section 3439.05 can set the transfer aside or seek other appropriate relief under Civil Code section 3439.07. [Citation.]” (Hasso v. Hapke (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 107, 121-122.) “If a creditor has obtained a judgment on a claim against the debtor, the creditor may levy execution on the asset transferred or its proceeds.” (Cal. Civ. Code §3439.07.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Promisory Note

  • Judge

    Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

CURTIS R. OLSON VS VIDALA AARONOFF, ET AL.

The operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) was filed on July 15, 2020 and asserts causes of action for (1) voidable transfer based on actual intent, (2) voidable transfer during or resulting in insolvency, (3) voidable transfer based upon lack of equivalent value, (4) fraud on creditors, (5) declaratory relief, (6) constructive trust, (7) cancellation of written instruments, (8) aiding and abetting violations of the Uniform Voidable Transactions Act, (9) Penal Code section 496, and (10) unjust enrichment.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

HANOKH GOLSHIRAZIAN, ET AL. VS ABBAS NAVID NIKKHOO, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS TRUSTEE OF THE NIKKHOO TRUST AGREEMENT, AND AS TRUSTEE OF THE ABBAS AND MANSOUREH NIKKHOO TRUST, ET AL.

Civil Code section 3439.04 provides eleven factors to consider actual intent in defrauding creditors, among which, is insolvency. (See Civ. Code, § 3439.04(b).) Insolvency is not required to allege a fraudulent transfer. (See Cooper v. Cooper (1959) 168 Cal.App.2d 326, 335 [discussing insolvency]; Freeman v. La Morte (1957) 148 Cal.App.2d 670, 675.) Therefore, the motion to strike is denied as to Item AA. Defendants have not made any arguments as to item BB, therefore the motion to strike is denied.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

BIGHORN VENTURES, LLC VS BALBOA BAY CLUB VENTURES, LLC, ET AL.

Code, § 3439.04 provides in pertinent part the following: “(a) A transfer made or obligation incurred by a debtor is voidable as to a creditor, whether the creditor's claim arose before or after the transfer was made or the obligation was incurred, if the debtor made the transfer or incurred the obligation as follows: (1) With actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud any creditor of the debtor.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

CHRISTOPHER HART VS SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING INC ET AL

.” (§ 3439.04, subd. (a).) (Nautilus, Inc. v. Yang (2017) 11 Cal.App.5th 33, 39, internal citations and quotation marks omitted.) Defendants argue that (1) Hart was not a creditor of Defendants, but their debtor; (2) the foreclosure sale was made with published notice; and (3) the sale was made pursuant to Hart’s failure to make payments, not with fraudulent intent. (Motion at pp. 11–14.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Foreclosure

AECOM ENERGY & CONSTRUCTION, INC. VS GARY G. TOPOLEWSKI, ET AL.

Code § 3439.04, subd. (b)(5), (9).) Topolewski’s interest in financial privacy is overborne by the materiality of the information sought to the issues in this case. This analysis, however, applies only to Interrogatories No. 9, 11, and 12 and Requests for Production No. 4–6, not Interrogatories No. 10 and 13. To these latter requests, Topolewski provided responses which Aecom merely finds implausible — namely that Topolewski obtained the funds to purchase the property from Northern.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

JACKSON WORLOW VS ASHER PERETZ, ET AL.

., and Does 1 through 50, alleging claims for: (1) intentional fraudulent transfer in violation of Civil Code section 3439.04(a)(1) and (2) tortious acts to hinder, deter, and defraud creditor. Auto Nation Group, Nathanel Peretz, and Nathalie Peretz were named as Doe Defendants 1 through 3, respectively. On July 8, 2020, Plaintiff filed a motion to have Requests for Admissions be deemed admitted and a motion to compel Defendant Uri Kohen’s (Kohen) responses to Form Interrogatories.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

MARGARET A DELIS ET AL VS MONTECITO FINANCIAL SERVICES INC E

(Civil Code §§3439.04(a), 3439.05.) A transfer can be invalid either because of actual fraud (Civ. Code § 3439.04(a)) or constructive fraud (Civ. Code § 3439.04(b), 3439.05). “Whether a transfer is made with fraudulent intent and whether a transferee acted in good faith and gave reasonably equivalent value within the meaning of [Civil Code] section 3439.08, subdivision (a), are questions of fact.” (Nautilus, Inc. v. Yang, (2017) 11 Cal.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

CHARMANE JOHNSON VS DONALD KAISERMAN, ET AL.

On March 24, 2020, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), asserting causes of action against Kaiserman, VIP and Does 1-100 for Breach of Contract Intentional Tort Common Counts Violation of Uniform Voidable Transactions Act (UVTA )—Civ. Code §§ 3439.04 and 3439.05 A Case Management Conference is set for October 13, 2020. 1.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

SHAHROKH MOKHTARZADEH, A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION VS ELNAZ HOUSHMAND NAGHASHAN, ET AL.

Lack of Standing Lastly, Houshmand and Iraj argue that SMPLC does not have standing under the Uniform Voidable Transactions Act because he “has yet to establish that he is a creditor of the defendants and, thusly, qualified to seek redress under these statutes.” (Motion at p. 5.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

MELVYN J. BERNIE, ET AL. VS SUZZANE EDMEIER, ET AL.

Code, § 3439.04, sub. (b).) A creditor seeking to void a transfer must prove the elements of the claim by a preponderance of the evidence. (Civ. Code, § 3439.04, sub. (c).) Assignee seeks to void Defendant’s 50 percent transfer of her real property to her ex-husband, Paul Edmeier. On April 5, 2019, the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department levied on the property at 825 Westmont Drive, Alhambra, California (“Property”), pursuant to a writ of execution. (Motion, Ex. E.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

DAVID H. FELL & CO., INC. VS COLISEE DESIGNS, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION , ET AL.

Intentional Voidable Transfer (5th COA) – Defendants “A fraudulent conveyance claim is set forth in the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (UFTA), which is codified in Civil Code section 3439 et seq. ‘A fraudulent conveyance is a transfer by the debtor of property to a third person undertaken with the intent to prevent a creditor from reaching that interest to satisfy its claim.’

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

GUDINO V. HERNANDEZ, ET AL.

Duran violated Civil Code section 3439.04, in violation of the Uniform Voidable Transactions Act. In the second cause of action plaintiff alleges a civil conspiracy to defraud, and requests punitive damages. A notice of related case in Gudino v. Duran, et al., Case No. 18CV02115 was filed on September 19, 2019. Defendants in this case answered on October 15, 2019. On August 25, 2020, plaintiff filed an application for writ attachment -- the same day as the same request was made in Case No. 18CV02115.

  • Hearing

CURTIS R. OLSON VS VIDALA AARONOFF, ET AL.

On July 15, 2020, Olson filed the operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), which asserts causes of action for (1) voidable transfer based actual intent, (2) voidable transfer during or resulting in insolvency, (3) voidable transfer based upon lack of equivalent value, (4) fraud on creditors, (5) declaratory relief, (6) constructive trust, (7) cancellation of written instruments, (8) aiding and abetting violations of the Uniform Voidable Transactions Act, (9) Penal Code § 496, and (10) unjust enrichment.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

MARIA CARMEN LEAL VS. NELLY DAGSTANYAN

The second amended complaint, filed June 22, 2018 in the EC064805 action, alleges causes of action for: (1) fraudulent transfer of real property under the Uniform Voidable Transactions Act (“UVTA”) against Grant Dagstanyan, Nelly Dagstanyan, Aresen Stepanyan, Maro Haroutunian, Marika Bastramajian, and Andranik Aleksayan; (2) fraudulent transfer of corporate property and assets under the UVTA against Grant Dagstanyan, Nelly Dagstanyan and Khachig Mestchyan; (3) constructive trust against Grant Dagstanyan, Nelly

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

MARGARET A DELIS ET AL VS MONTECITO FINANCIAL SERVICES INC E

Code § 3439.04(b)(1), (2).) They also allegedly concealed the transfers from Plaintiff. (SAC ¶ 447; Civ. Code § 3439.04(b)(3), (7).) As noted, the debtor defendants allegedly became insolvent as a result of the transfers, and did not receive a reasonably equivalent value. (Civ. Code § 3439.04(b)(8), (10).) Therefore, the claim passes muster for pleading purposes. Accordingly, Legacy’s demurrer is OVERRULED as to this cause.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 20     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we load this page.