What is the Uniform Voidable Transactions Act?

Useful Resources for Uniform Voidable Transactions Act

Recent Rulings on Uniform Voidable Transactions Act

226-250 of 521 results

LAPOINTE VS JJS LTD

Section 3439.04(a)(1) pertains to a transfer made "with actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud any creditor of the debtor." Section 3439.04(a)(2) pertains to a transfer made "without receiving a reasonably equivalent value in exchange for the transfer or obligation." Defendants' argument lacks merit. This action was initiated less than four years after the September 2013 transaction date.

  • Hearing

    Mar 06, 2019

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

PLAT FORM INC. V. IRVINE BREWERY INC.

(f)): Fifth Cause of Action (Breach of Fiduciary Duty); Sixth Cause of Action (Civil Theft); Seventh Cause of Action (Fraud and Deceit); Eighth Cause of Action (Conversion); Ninth Cause of Action (Fraudulent Transfer under Uniform Voidable Transactions Act); Tenth Cause of Action (Common Law Fraudulent Transfer); Eleventh Cause of Action (Money Had and Received); Twelfth Cause of Action (Unjust Enrichment and Restitution); Thirteenth Cause of Action (Willful Misconduct); Fourteenth Cause of Action (Negligence

  • Hearing

    Mar 05, 2019

MATTHEW GREEN VS PAULA R GREEN ET AL

A fraudulent conveyance claim is defined in the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act which is codified in Civ. Code §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 reach that interest to satisfy its claim. (Yaesu Electronics Corp. v. Tamura (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 8, 13.)

  • Hearing

    Feb 27, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

DAVID AZIZI VS. BEHNAM RAFALIAN, ET AL.

The relevant statute is the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (‘UFTA”). Under the UFTA, the statute of limitations for a fraudulent transfer is 4 years or, with delayed discovery, one year after claimant reasonably could have discovered the transfer. (Civ. Code, § 3439.09(a).) The assignment of judgment was filed in the underlying case (SC085372) on March 6, 2012.

  • Hearing

    Feb 22, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

  • Judge

    Maurice A. Leiter or Salvatore Sirna

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

GOLD V. BERBEY, ET AL.

“The Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act ..., codified in Civil Code section 3439 et seq., ‘permits defrauded creditors to reach property in the hands of a transferee.’ ” (Filip v. Bucurenciu (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 825, 829 (Filip).) “ ‘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.’ [Citation.]

  • Hearing

    Feb 20, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

WEN HONG XIA VS GREEN GARDEN TRADING INC ET AL

Fraudulent transfer under California Civil Code, Section 3439.04(a)(1) does not require any showing of intent. Furthermore, Plaintiff argues she is asserting constructive fraudulent transfer to vindicate a wholly separate primary right: “As previously stated, in this case, Plaintiff, as a creditor, is seeking to enforce a judgment against GGT” and because Green Garden is dissolved, that necessarily means holding its former shareholders liable. (See Opposition pp. 8-9.) The Court rejects this argument.

  • Hearing

    Feb 15, 2019

GRAY1 CPB, LLC VS. GULFSTREAM FINANCE, INC.

Despite this acknowledgement, Defendants argue without citation to authority that Kurtin must allege more than the same facts that support his causes of action under the UVTA. The Court now concludes that Plaintiff may simultaneously and alternatively pursue a common law fraudulent conveyance action and claims under the UVTA.

  • Hearing

    Feb 15, 2019

THE TDS GROUP INC. ET AL VS YA HUI (EMILY) WANG ET AL

and e) while the Court does not know (and has no opinion) whether plaintiffs ultimately will prevail on its UVTA claim, the discovery requested is legitimate.

  • Hearing

    Feb 14, 2019

THE TDS GROUP INC. ET AL VS YA HUI (EMILY) WANG ET AL

The Court also does not think there necessarily will be irreconcilable outcomes because even if plaintiffs win in this UVTA action and receive a money judgment, defendants can move to stay the judgment pending the outcome of the appealed case. 2. The Court would not use its discretionary power to stay this action under CCP § 918. There may well be value in discovery regarding defendants’ assets, and the Court, down the road, can ensure no irreconcilable outcomes, as explained above. 3.

  • Hearing

    Feb 14, 2019

NELSON & NENEBETH HERRERA V. ROCHELLE MATKIN, ET AL.

(Civil Code §3439.04(a).) “A creditor may bring an action for relief from a fraudulent transfer or obligation.” (8 Witkin, California Procedure (5th ed. 2008) Enforcement of Judgment, §498, p. 538; see also Civ. Code §3439.07(a)(1).) The FAC’s first cause of action, alleging that the sale of the subject property on March 22, 2018 (see ex.

  • Hearing

    Feb 14, 2019

THE TDS GROUP INC. ET AL VS YA HUI (EMILY) WANG ET AL

The Court does not need to decide the merits of this UVTA case. Plaintiffs’ “claim” as “creditors” under the UVTA is not frivolous, given the findings at various times in the two jury trials in plaintiffs’ favor. The Court believes that plaintiff have a “claim” for purposes of the UVTA, even if it is disputed, unmatured, and subject to a favorable outcome on appeal. 2.

  • Hearing

    Feb 14, 2019

NOORIGIAN V. ROSENFELD

Civil Code section 3439.04(a).” (Id. at 664.) Part of the contentions were that the value of the marital property transferred to wife was far above the value of the husband’s medical practice. He thereafter quit practicing medicine and moved in with his mother. Plaintiffs have alleged they have a claim and that the persons/entities liable thereon include Zarina Rosenfeld (“Zarina”).

  • Hearing

    Feb 13, 2019

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

BARBARA HOLDINGS, INC. V. 2006 CATALINA FUND, LLC, ET AL.

As a preliminary matter, a cause of action for fraudulent conveyance can be predicated on Civil Code sections 3439.04 or 3439.05. The allegations in the complaint correspond to the elements set forth in section 3439.04 and Plaintiff confirms its claim is based upon section 3439.04 in its opposition. “A fraudulent conveyance claim is set forth in the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act, which is codified in Civil Code section 3439 et seq.” (Kirkeby v. Superior Court (2004) 33 Cal.4th 642, 648.)

  • Hearing

    Feb 07, 2019

  • Judge

    Presiding

  • County

    Santa Clara County, CA

SMOK'N BONES VS. VENTURI

The only real property claim in the complaint is the claim under the Uniform Voidable Transactions Act. (See CC 3439 et. seq.; Kirkeby v. Superior Court (2004) 33 Cal.4th 642, 645, 650-651.) Once the property is transferred back to the way defendants held it before October 9, 2018, that claim will be moot, and there will be no basis for a lis pendens.

  • Hearing

    Feb 07, 2019

PRIMARY FUNDING CORPORATION VS HICKMAN

There are sufficient facts alleged against Defendant Hickman to constitute causes of action under Civil Code §§3439.04 and 3439.05, based on R.A Hickman's alleged transfer assets, including a security interest in his residence located at 1079 Bellingham Drive, Oceanside, to his father Defendant Hickman. As a point of clarification, the complaint alleges two causes of action against Defendant Hickman (the First and Third).

  • Hearing

    Feb 07, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

DAVID AZIZI VS. BEHNAM RAFALIAN, ET AL.

A claim under the Uniform Voidable Transactions Act is a right to payment, whether or not it has been reduced to a judgment. (Civ. Code, § 3439.01(b).) The maximum statute of limitations to set aside a fraudulent conveyance is seven years. (PGA West Residential Assn., Inc. v. Hulven Internat., Inc. (2017) 14 Cal.App.5th 156, 183.) Because Rafalian can still assert a common law claim as a creditor, judicial economy is best served by addressing these allegations concerning the same property in this action.

  • Hearing

    Feb 05, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

  • Judge

    Maurice A. Leiter or Salvatore Sirna

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

369413 ALBERTA LTD VS POCKLINGTON

Evidence of Transfer Under the Uniform Voidable Transactions Act (UVTA) (Civil Code §3439.04-3439.06) there are specific situations in which a transfer is voidable. If the transfer is voidable, the creditor is entitled to seek the following remedies: avoidance of the transfer to satisfy the creditor’s claim, attachment, injunction, receiver, etc. (Civil Code §3439.07.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 29, 2019

GOLD V. BERBEY, ET AL.

Attachment is expressly authorized under Civil Code section 3439.07, subdivision (a)(2), which provides that in an action for relief under the UVTA the creditor may obtain “[a]n attachment or other provisional remedy against the asset transferred or other property of the transferee” “in accordance with the procedures described in Title 6.5 (commencing with Section 481.010) of Part 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure.”

  • Hearing

    Jan 29, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

FSP-SOUTH FLOWER STREET LLC VS MORGAN STANLEY PRIVATE BANK N

Wiltsey Civil Action On May 4, 2016, FSP filed a verified complaint against Wiltsey for (1) breach of written office lease and (2) violation of the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (“UFTA”). Kompa Decl. ¶2. On December 15, 2017, FSP’s counsel conducted a “live” default prove-up hearing before the Hon. Judge Gregory Keosian in Los Angeles County Superior Court. Kompa Decl. ¶3.

  • Hearing

    Jan 24, 2019

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

EXCEL RESIDENTIAL SERVICES INC ET AL VS JOSEPH S KIM ET AL

“A fraudulent conveyance claim is set forth in the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (UFTA), which is codified in Civil Code section 3439 et seq.”[1] (Kirkeby v. Superior Court (2004) 33 Cal.4th 642, 648.) “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.” (Kirkeby v. Superior Court, supra, 33 Cal.4th at p. 648.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2019

EXCEL RESIDENTIAL SERVICES INC ET AL VS JOSEPH S KIM ET AL

“A fraudulent conveyance claim is set forth in the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (UFTA), which is codified in Civil Code section 3439 et seq.”[1] (Kirkeby v. Superior Court (2004) 33 Cal.4th 642, 648.) “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.” (Kirkeby v. Superior Court, supra, 33 Cal.4th at p. 648.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2019

SEGNI V. DAVIS

Defendant has brought her Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication (“MSJ”) as to all causes of action of the FAC, 1) Actual Intent To Hinder, Delay or defraud a Creditor (CC § 3439.04(A)(1)); 2) Constructive Fraudulent Conveyance (Cal. Civil Code §3439.04(A)(2); 3) Declaratory Relief; 4) Resulting Trust; and 5) Constructive Trust. Defendant’s argument is that the property was underwater at the time of the transfer and that there was no equity in the Property due to liens and homestead exemption.

  • Hearing

    Jan 17, 2019

TIFFANEE TUCKER VS CHARLES ROGER BROWN

Code, § 3439.04] [footnote omitted]; see also Filip v. Bucurenciu, supra, 129 Cal.App.4th at 829.) Defendant demurs to the fraudulent transfer claim on the ground that Plaintiff fails to allege a transfer of the property from Defendant to a third party. (Demurrer, pp. 3-4.) Defendant claims this is required under Civil Code section 3439.01(m). Here, contrary to Defendant’s assertion, there is no requirement that the transfer be to a “third party” under Civil Code section 3439.01(m).

  • Hearing

    Jan 17, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

RUSSELL MARK SHEPPEL, ET AL V. JOHN BELSHER, ET AL

Code, § 3439.04(a); Gaab & Reese, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial Claims & Defenses (The Rutter Group 2018), § 5:517 [“The transfer element is satisfied where the debtor does not transfer the asset in its entirety, but burdens it in some way that hinders collection.”])

  • Hearing

    Jan 16, 2019

BARBARA GATLIN VS DELLITA JOHNSON ET AL

Section 3439.04, subdivision (b) lists factors that may be considered in determining actual intent. (Code Civ. Proc., § 3439.04, subd. (b).) Plaintiff argues that the transfer meets eight of the enumerated factors: (1) the transfer was made to insiders (id. § 3439.04, subd. (b)(1)); (2) Defendant Johnson retained possession and control of the property after transfer and still resides there (id., subd. (b)(2)); (3) the transfer was concealed (id., subd.

  • Hearing

    Dec 19, 2018

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

  « first    1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ... 21     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.