What is the Uniform Voidable Transactions Act?

Useful Resources for Uniform Voidable Transactions Act

Recent Rulings on Uniform Voidable Transactions Act

476-500 of 521 results

LAMELZA VS. LINDSAY, LINDSAY FAMILY TRUST, CITIVEST, INC.

Defendants’ demurrer assumes and concludes that fair consideration was given for the conveyance, and therefore there can be no fraud involved per CC § 3439.04. The sole issue raised by a general demurrer is whether the facts pleaded state a valid cause of action-not whether they are true. Thus, no matter how unlikely or improbable, plaintiffs’ allegations must be accepted as true for the purpose of ruling on the demurrer. (Del E. Webb Corp. v. Structural Materials Co. (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 593, 604.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 01, 2016

PSC 1402906

Under the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act, a “claim” is a right to payment. (Civ. Code § 3439.01(b).) MCR and Brixton assert that the first cause of action and the prayer for relief related thereto do not reference the Settlement Agreement therefore TCI is not a creditor of MCR and as such the fraudulent transfer cause of action fails. TCI asserts that it is a creditor of MCR pursuant to the Settlement Agreement.

  • Hearing

    Aug 26, 2016

RICHARD A MUMFORD VS SAN DIMAS RETIREMENT CENTER INC ET AL

This instant motion is procedurally improper, inasmuch as the proposed supplemental complaint contains entirely new causes of action, namely (1) to establish successor liability for damages, and (2) violation of the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act. Therefore, the motion is denied.

  • Hearing

    Aug 23, 2016

TBF FINANCIAL I,LLC VS ASAP COPY PRINT

. §§3439.04(a), 3439.05; 8 Witkin Cal. Pro. (5th ed. 2008) Enforcement of Judgment §§495-98. See also Filip v. Bucurenciu (2005) 129 Cal. App. 4th 825, 834 ("There is no minimum number of factors that must be present before the scales tip in favor of finding of actual intent to defraud."); Kirkeby v. Sup.

  • Hearing

    Aug 17, 2016

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Collections

LETICIA L. CHARNETSKY VS. BAY SHORE VILLA HEALTHCARE

Civil Code section 3439.04 et seq. provide for various statute of limitations periods depending on when a plaintiff discovers or should have discovered an alleged fraudulent transfer, with the default being a four-year period. C.C. §3439.04(a)(1). The alleged transfers (June 2011) occurred more than four years prior to the September 9, 2015 filing of the subject complaint. Because plaintiffs have not alleged any facts against defendant Yap, the Court cannot evaluate the timeliness of the claims.

  • Hearing

    Aug 16, 2016

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

ALVORD V. DEVER

Nevertheless, the argument appears to fail because under CC 3439.04, which is cited as the legal basis for both the 7th and 8th causes of action, the improper transfer is voidable “whether the creditor’s claim arose BEFORE or AFTER the transfer was made . . . .” It is well-established that a general demurrer will not lie to only part of a cause of action.

  • Hearing

    Aug 01, 2016

E.O.C. ORD VS. SOURA

HEARING ON DEMURRER TO 2nd Amended CROSS-COMPLAINT of SOURA FILED BY WILLIAM K NORMAN ESQ * TENTATIVE RULING: * Cross-Defendant William Norman’s demurrer to the fifth cause of action for violation of the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act in the Second Amended Cross-Complaint is sustained without leave to amend. The Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (“UFTA”) codified in Civil Code Section 3439, et seq. “permits defrauded creditors to reach property in the hands of a transferee.”

  • Hearing

    May 19, 2016

CRYSTAL LEI ET AL VS. DEMAS W YAN ET AL

The second cause of action alleges sufficient ultimate facts to support a claim for fraudulent transfer in violation of the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (Cal. Civ. Code sec. 3439.04). Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to [email protected] with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number.

  • Hearing

    Apr 08, 2016

CRYSTAL LEI ET AL VS. DEMAS W YAN ET AL

The second cause of action alleges sufficient ultimate facts to support a claim for fraudulent transfer in violation of the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (Cal. Civ. Code sec. 3439.04). Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to [email protected] with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number.

  • Hearing

    Apr 08, 2016

BRINKMAN PORTILLO PC VS. ORSON BAUMANN

Code 3439.04). D argues: No allegations that Baumann made any conveyances to DeMar with the intent to prevent a creditor from reaching that interest to satisfy its claims. Ps opp: All necessary facts have been plead. The COURT intends to Conclude: "Under the UFTA, a transfer is fraudulent, both as to present and future creditors, if it is made '[w]ith actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud any creditor of the debtor.' (Civ. Code, § 3439.04, [subd. (a)(1 )].) (Mejia v. Reed (2003) 31 Cal.4th 657, 663.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 05, 2016

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

GARY PAUDLER VS AMERICAN FINANCIAL NETWORK INC ET AL

Code, § 3439.04, subd. (a).) Remedies for fraudulent transfers are available only to creditors. (See Civ. Code, § 3439.07, subd. (a) [“In an action for relief against a transfer or obligation under this chapter, a creditor … may obtain” specific remedies].) An action for fraudulent transfer is to give remedies to a creditor where the fraudulent transfer would prevent the creditor from receiving payment on the underlying debt.

  • Hearing

    Oct 14, 2015

VLADIMIR MIROV VS. ARKADY BERGER ET AL

Rather, the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act requires a separate action to set aside a fraudulent transfer. (See Civ. Code sec. 3439.07(a).) Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to [email protected] with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number.

  • Hearing

    Sep 10, 2015

VLADIMIR MIROV VS. ARKADY BERGER ET AL

Rather, the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act requires a separate action to set aside a fraudulent transfer. (See Civ. Code sec. 3439.07(a).) Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to [email protected] with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number.

  • Hearing

    Aug 07, 2015

VLADIMIR MIROV VS. ARKADY BERGER ET AL

Rather, the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act requires a separate action to set aside a fraudulent transfer. (See Civ. Code sec. 3439.07(a).) Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to [email protected] with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number.

  • Hearing

    Aug 07, 2015

VLADIMIR MIROV VS. ARKADY BERGER ET AL

Rather, the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act requires a separate action to set aside a fraudulent transfer. (See Civ. Code sec. 3439.07(a).) Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to [email protected] with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number.

  • Hearing

    Jul 28, 2015

VLADIMIR MIROV VS. ARKADY BERGER ET AL

Rather, the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act requires a separate action to set aside a fraudulent transfer. (See Civ. Code sec. 3439.07(a).) Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to [email protected] with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number.

  • Hearing

    Jul 28, 2015

GARY PAUDLER VS AMERICAN FINANCIAL NETWORK INC ET AL

Code, § 3439.04, subd. (a).) Remedies for fraudulent transfers are available only to creditors. (See Civ. Code, § 3439.07, subd. (a) [“In an action for relief against a transfer or obligation under this chapter, a creditor … may obtain” specific remedies].) An action for fraudulent transfer is to give remedies to a creditor where the fraudulent transfer would prevent the creditor from receiving payment on the underlying debt.

  • Hearing

    Jul 22, 2015

JANE DOE 1, ET AL. V. MICHAEL JOHN STINCHFIELD, ET AL.

Whether a transaction is a fraudulent transfer under the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act involves the consideration of multiple factors. (Civ. Code, § 3439.04, subd. (b).) Weighing factors, including the factor of the relationships of the parties, is outside the scope of a demurrer, which addresses only the sufficiency of the allegations. Neither plaintiffs nor Demurring Defendants distinguish in their arguments between the ninth and tenth causes of action.

  • Hearing

    Jun 29, 2015

SCOTT HALLOCK VS. KEVIN HEALEY

That dispute about a business formerly conducted by the parties has nothing to do with Plaintiff's claim that the Defendants have breached the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act ("UFTA"). Put another way, nothing that the arbitrator might decide about the business agreement would have any impact on this Court's determination as to whether the Defendants violated the UFTA.

  • Hearing

    Jun 09, 2015

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

SCOTT HALLOCK VS. KEVIN HEALEY

The law and evidence concerning whether a defendant engaged in the intentional infliction of emotion distress has nothing to do with whether the defendants in this case violated the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (UFTA). The context of the financial dispute is simply background for both cases. Whether the plaintiff in one of the actions prevails or not has absolutely no bearing on whether the plaintiff in the other action will prevail.

  • Hearing

    Jun 05, 2015

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

HEATH GRAFF VS ONEWEST BANK ET AL

Civil Code § 3439.04(a). Banks maintain that Graff cannot maintain this cause of action because the transferee is a bona fide purchaser in good faith. A transfer is not voidable under Civil Code § 3439.04(a)(1) “against a person who took in good faith and for a reasonably equivalent value….” Civil Code § 3439.08(a). A good faith transferee is one who “did not collude with the debtor or otherwise actively participate in the fraudulent scheme of the debtor.” Lewis v.

  • Hearing

    Feb 03, 2015

CARL THELANDER VS. RICHARD E LYONS

("SPC Environmental") constituted a fraudulent transfer within the meaning of Civil Code §3439.04(a)(1).

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2015

CARL THELANDER VS. RICHARD E LYONS

("SPC Environmental") constituted a fraudulent transfer within the meaning of Civil Code §3439.04(a)(1). Specifically, Plaintiff alleges facts indicating that the Lyons Defendants and SPMCB, Inc. were then-present debtors due to outstanding payments owed under the Written Agreement (see Complaint id. at ¶¶51, 53, 61, 63), and SPC Environmental is a necessary party as the alleged transferee of some of the allegedly fraudulently transferred property (see Diamond Heights Village Assn., Inc. v.

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2015

DLG FAMILY LIMITED ETC VS LOS MEGANOS HOMEOWNERS ASSOC ET AL

Because there is a causal link between the alleged fraudulent transfers and the loss of rental income to [Los Meganos], [Los Meganos] has alleged injury for which [Los Meganos] would be entitled to recovery under the [Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act].” (Opp., Ex. A, Tentative Ruling, p. 7-8.) As the court indicated in its prior ruling, the fact that the subject property is over encumbered does not mean that Los Meganos suffered no damages or that its claim for fraudulent transfer is deficient.

  • Hearing

    Dec 08, 2014

GEORGE A. ALVARY VS. SUZANNE C. LAMEY

The Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (Civ.Code § 3439 et seq.) has different statutes of limitation depending on the nature of the transfer. However, the longest period is four years. Civ.Code § 3439.09(a), (b). The last payment that is the subject of this cause of action was made in July, 2009. (FAC, ¶ 20). This action was filed on 2/5/14, well over four years later. Therefore, this cause of action is barred by the four-year statute of limitations.

  • Hearing

    Oct 17, 2014

  • Type

    Insurance

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

  « first    1 ... 15 16 17 18 19 20 21     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.