What is the Uniform Voidable Transactions Act?

Useful Resources for Uniform Voidable Transactions Act

Recent Rulings on Uniform Voidable Transactions Act

76-100 of 521 results

CITY NATIONAL BANK VS XXXXXXX XXXXXXX ET AL

The FAC asserts causes of action for (1) statutory fraudulent transfer with actual intent – Civil Code section 3439.04(a)(1), (2) statutory fraudulent transfer with constructive intent – Civil Code section 3439.04(a)(2), (3) statutory fraudulent transfer with constructive intent – Civil Code section 3439.05, (4) common law fraudulent transfer, (5) transfer and/or cancellation of stock shares, (6) injunctive relief, (7) declaratory relief, and (8) unjust enrichment.

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

HUGO IVAN MALDONADO VS LUIS GONZALEZ, ET AL.

Boulter, John Scott, and Debra Scott for (1) quiet title; (2) financial dependent adult abuse; (3) unfair and deceptive practices; (4) predatory lending; (5) unconscionability; (6) rescission and restitution; (7) cancellation of written instrument; (8) theft; (9) common count: money had and received; (10) conversion; (11) fraud – count 1; (12) fraud – count II; (13) breach of fiduciary duty; (14) intentional violation of Uniform Voidable Transactions Act; (15) constructive fraudulent transfer; (16) aiding and

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

PEARHEAD, INC. VS. LUH

Under the UVTA 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 with actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud a creditor. (Civ. Code, § 3439.04(a)(1); CACI 4200.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 25, 2020

SMARTMED, INC. V. FIRSTCHOICE MEDICAL GROUP, INC.

However, here plaintiff seeks an attachment order under the Uniform Voidable Transactions Act (UVTA), which expressly authorizes issuance of attachment orders as one of the remedies for a fraudulent transfer.

  • Hearing

    Jun 25, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

HOWARD FUCHS VS JOEL WERTMAN ET AL

Actual Fraudulent Transfer (1st COA) “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

    Jun 24, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

FINANCE HOLDING COMPANY, LLC VS NOREDIN TABIBNIA, ET AL.

Civil Code section 3439.04, subdivision (a), provides as follows: 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

    Jun 24, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

CASILIO VS. VALENTINE

Turning to the law, under the Uniform Voidable Transactions Act (“UVTA”), a transfer “made . . . by a debtor is voidable as to a creditor, whether the creditor’s claim arose before or after the transfer” if the transfer was made with “actual intent to hinder” the creditor or without receiving “a reasonably equivalent value in exchange . . .” (CC § 3439.04 (a)(1), (2).)

  • Hearing

    Jun 03, 2020

HENRY TOSTA VS G. MICHAEL WILLIAMS ET AL.

The Uniform Voidable Transactions Act (codified in Civil Code section 3439, et seq.) permits creditors to reach property in the hands of a transferee. A fraudulent conveyance involves “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.” (See Yaesu Electronics Corp. v. Tamura (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 8, 13.)

  • Hearing

    May 01, 2020

  • Judge Jayne Lee
  • County

    San Joaquin County, CA

DANIEL W. HOPP VS 33428 CALVEST MALIBU, LLC, ET AL.,

In addition to the declaratory relief action against Credit Suisse, Plaintiff also filed a common law fraudulent transfer action as well as a statutory California Uniform Voidable Transactions Act cause of action related to the above-mentioned transfers. As such, the controversy is related to or arises out of Credit Suisse’s contacts with California.

  • Hearing

    Mar 17, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

DELISI VS WAGNER

The complaint pleads two counts: (1) violation of the Uniform Voidable Transactions Act (Civil Code § 3439 et seq.); and (2) declaratory relief. The court incorporates part 1 of the minutes for June 15, 2018, ROA 265, for a more detailed recitation of the twists and turns this case has taken.

  • Hearing

    Mar 16, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

DELISI VS WAGNER

The complaint pleads two counts: (1) violation of the Uniform Voidable Transactions Act (Civil Code § 3439 et seq.); and (2) declaratory relief. The court incorporates part 1 of the minutes for June 15, 2018, ROA 265, for a more detailed recitation of the twists and turns this case has taken.

  • Hearing

    Mar 16, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

MARTIN V. MANCUSO, ET AL.

Section 3439.09 is a section in the Uniform Voidable Transactions Act (see Civ. Code § 3439 (stating “[t]his chapter may be cited as the uniform Voidable Transactions Act”)); however, neither the first four causes of action of the FAC allege a debtor-creditor relationship nor does Mancuso argue that the FAC so alleges in his motion.

  • Hearing

    Mar 12, 2020

JANE DOE VS ROBERT DEAN LEE ET AL

On December 28, 2017, plaintiff filed a SAC adding causes of action for violations of Uniform Voidable Transactions Act. DISCUSSION The court has reviewed the petition and finds the settlement terms to be fair and reasonable. The agreement provides for defendant G. Lee to convey all of her assets to plaintiff upon G. Lee’s death. It allows G. Lee to continue residing in her home and receiving the rent from the adjoining single-family residence. G. Lee’s will provides that plaintiff is her sole heir.

  • Hearing

    Mar 03, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

CALIFORNIA BANK VS. NORTHERN PACIFIC

Civil Code § 3439.04(a)(1). Defendants argue Plaintiff has failed to meet its burden of establishing the probable validity of the claim of the fraudulent conveyance claim. They contend Plaintiff’s evidence does not establish fraudulent intent on the part of the Koeberers. Defendants maintain the evidence shows the Koeberers were merely guarantors of the CBC loans, and CBC could not be considered a creditor at the time the Trust was created.

  • Hearing

    Feb 27, 2020

AFABLE VS. CHOU

“The UVTA, formerly known as the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (see Stats. 2015, ch. 44, § 2), ‘permits defrauded creditors to reach property in the hands of a transferee.’ [Citation.]… The purpose of the voidable transactions statute is ‘ “to prevent debtors from placing property which legitimately should be available for the satisfaction of demands of creditors beyond their reach … .” ’ [Citation.]” (Lo v. Lee (2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 1065, 1071.)

  • Hearing

    Feb 26, 2020

MOURIS AHDOUT VS HEKMATJAH FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP ET AL

A transfer under the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (UFTA) is defined as “‘every mode, direct or indirect, absolute or conditional, voluntary or involuntary, of disposing of or parting with an asset . . . , and includes payment of money, release, lease, and creation of a lien or other encumbrance.” (Ibid.)

  • Hearing

    Feb 25, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

NEWSTART REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT LLC VS 325 FLAMINGO LLC ET A

Issue Two: Plaintiff’s Fraudulent Transfer Cause of Action is Barred as a Matter of Law Defendants next contend that Plaintiff’s Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (“UFTA”) claim is also time-barred because “specific corporate code limitation” provided in NRS 86.343 and 86.505 control over any limitations period in the UFTA. (Motion, 7-8.) Defendants appear to rely on Renda v.

  • Hearing

    Feb 19, 2020

RESIDUAL INCOME OPPORTUNITIES INC ET AL VS TRIBUL MERCHANT S

Discussion Second Cause of Action for Setting Aside Fraudulent Transfer “The UVTA, formerly known as the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act [citations], “permits defrauded creditors to reach property in the hands of a transferee.” [Citation.] “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 07, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

Under the UVTA, “‘[a]sset’ means property of a debtor….” (Civ. Code, § 3439.01(a).) Under Plaintiffs’ theory of the cause of action, Defendant Nasrin converted the Partnership’s equity in two properties. (FAC ¶ 45.) Thus, it does not appear Plaintiffs allege transfer of an “asset” because the transferred property belonged to the Partnership. Accordingly, the demurrer is SUSTAINED with leave to amend. VI.

  • Hearing

    Jan 24, 2020

ANTONE NINO AND NASRIN SHAKERI NINO, A PARTNERSHIP VS NASRIN SHAKERI NINO, INDIVIDUALLY, AND AS GENERAL PARTNER, ETC., ET AL.

Under the UVTA, “‘[a]sset’ means property of a debtor….” (Civ. Code, § 3439.01(a).) Under Plaintiffs’ theory of the cause of action, Defendant Nasrin converted the Partnership’s equity in two properties. (FAC ¶ 45.) Thus, it does not appear Plaintiffs allege transfer of an “asset” because the transferred property belonged to the Partnership. Accordingly, the demurrer is SUSTAINED with leave to amend. VI.

  • Hearing

    Jan 24, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

ANTONE NINO AND NASRIN SHAKERI NINO, A PARTNERSHIP VS NASRIN SHAKERI NINO, INDIVIDUALLY, AND AS GENERAL PARTNER, ETC., ET AL.

Under the UVTA, “‘[a]sset’ means property of a debtor….” (Civ. Code, § 3439.01(a).) Under Plaintiffs’ theory of the cause of action, Defendant Nasrin converted the Partnership’s equity in two properties. (FAC ¶ 45.) Thus, it does not appear Plaintiffs allege transfer of an “asset” because the transferred property belonged to the Partnership. Accordingly, the demurrer is SUSTAINED with leave to amend. VI.

  • Hearing

    Jan 23, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

CAMUS VS GONZALEZ [E-FILE]

The demurrer to the fourth cause of action for Uniform Voidable Transactions Act is sustained without leave to amend. The allegations are insufficient to state a claim under the Act and it does not appear reasonable that Plaintiffs can state a claim even if leave to amend were granted. The demurrer to the fifth cause of action for Violation of B&PC § 17200 is sustained without leave to amend.

  • Hearing

    Jan 23, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

BLIZZARD ENERGY, INC. V. BERND SCHAEFERS

Blizzard argues that whether this Court enters a judgment against Val, Marina’s legal rights will only be impacted if the Santa Barbara court independently determines that she is liable for violating the Uniform Voidable Transactions Act (“UVTA”). Marina’s interest in this action is remote at best. Blizzard argues that the fundamental reason why a decision by this Court to add Val to the judgment will have no effect on Marina’s rights is because a judgment is not an essential element of a UVTA action.

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2020

ALICE LOPEZ VS. KEVIN GRAVES

The essential elements to pleading a California Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act ("UFTA") cause of action are: (1) The plaintiff has a right to payment from a third party; (2) The third party transferred property or incurred an obligation to the defendant; (3) the third party transferred the property or incurred in the obligation with the intent to hinder, delay or defraud one or more of his creditors; and (4) the plaintiff was harmed. California Elements of an Action § 30:1; See also Kirkeby v.

  • Hearing

    Jan 17, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

FRANK MCHUGH VS ADAM GREENFIELD, ET AL.

California has adopted the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (Civil Code sections 3439-3439.12), the purpose of which is “to prevent debtors from placing property which legitimately should be available for the satisfaction of demands of creditors beyond their reach.” (Chichester v. Mason (1941) 43 Cal.App.2d 577, 584.) A fraudulent transfer under the Act may be intentional (section 3439.04(a)(1)) or constructive (section 3439.04 (a)(2)). (Mejia v.

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

  « first    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 21     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.