What is the Uniform Voidable Transactions Act?

Useful Resources for Uniform Voidable Transactions Act

Recent Rulings on Uniform Voidable Transactions Act

176-200 of 521 results

MUNOZ VS PL HOTEL GROUP LLC

In 1986, California enacted a version of the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (UFTA), which had been revised by the Commission on Uniform State Laws following passage of the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978. "The UFTA permits defrauded creditors to reach property in the hands of a transferee." (Mejia v. Reed (2003) 31 Cal.4th 657, 663.)

  • Hearing

    Aug 20, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

MARIA CARMEN LEAL VS. NELLY DAGSTANYAN

Further, Civil Code, §3439.04(a) states: “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” upon the showing of certain factors. (Emphasis added.) Thus, the mere fact that Defendants began making fraudulent transfers prior to the entry of the judgment in the Underlying Judgment does not necessarily equate to a finding that a fraudulent transfer is not actionable.

  • Hearing

    Aug 16, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

ANDRADE VS. PACIFIC SENIOR

Under the Uniform Voidable Transactions Act (formerly the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act), 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).)

  • Hearing

    Aug 15, 2019

ANDRADE VS. PACIFIC SENIOR

Under the Uniform Voidable Transactions Act (formerly the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act), 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).)

  • Hearing

    Aug 15, 2019

CITY NATIONAL BANK VS XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX ET AL

Sufficiency Plaintiff’s first three causes of action are based on the Uniform Voidable Transactions Act (“UVTA”) (Civ. Code § 3439 et seq.). The UVTA “permits defrauded creditors to reach property in the hands of a transferee.” (Lo v. Lee (2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 1065, 1071.) A fraudulent transfer is one “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. (Ibid.)

  • Hearing

    Aug 14, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

MUNOZ VS PL HOTEL GROUP LLC

In 1986, California enacted a version of the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (UFTA), which had been revised by the Commission on Uniform State Laws following passage of the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978. "The UFTA permits defrauded creditors to reach property in the hands of a transferee." (Mejia v. Reed (2003) 31 Cal.4th 657, 663.)

  • Hearing

    Aug 06, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

MUNOZ VS PL HOTEL GROUP LLC

In 1986, California enacted a version of the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (UFTA), which had been revised by the Commission on Uniform State Laws following passage of the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978. "The UFTA permits defrauded creditors to reach property in the hands of a transferee." (Mejia v. Reed (2003) 31 Cal.4th 657, 663.)

  • Hearing

    Aug 06, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

MUNOZ VS PL HOTEL GROUP LLC

In 1986, California enacted a version of the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (UFTA), which had been revised by the Commission on Uniform State Laws following passage of the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978. "The UFTA permits defrauded creditors to reach property in the hands of a transferee." (Mejia v. Reed (2003) 31 Cal.4th 657, 663.)

  • Hearing

    Aug 06, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

MUNOZ VS PL HOTEL GROUP LLC

In 1986, California enacted a version of the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (UFTA), which had been revised by the Commission on Uniform State Laws following passage of the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978. "The UFTA permits defrauded creditors to reach property in the hands of a transferee." (Mejia v. Reed (2003) 31 Cal.4th 657, 663.)

  • Hearing

    Aug 06, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

MUNOZ VS PL HOTEL GROUP LLC

In 1986, California enacted a version of the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (UFTA), which had been revised by the Commission on Uniform State Laws following passage of the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978. "The UFTA permits defrauded creditors to reach property in the hands of a transferee." (Mejia v. Reed (2003) 31 Cal.4th 657, 663.)

  • Hearing

    Aug 06, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

MUNOZ VS PL HOTEL GROUP LLC

In 1986, California enacted a version of the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (UFTA), which had been revised by the Commission on Uniform State Laws following passage of the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978. "The UFTA permits defrauded creditors to reach property in the hands of a transferee." (Mejia v. Reed (2003) 31 Cal.4th 657, 663.)

  • Hearing

    Aug 06, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

YIE-MING HONG, ET AL. VS XURUI WANG, ET AL.

(Civil Code §§3439.04(a), 3439.05; Kirkeby, supra, (2004) 33 Cal.4th 642, 651 [fraudulent transfer sufficiently alleged based on defendant’s transfer of property with the intent to defraud, hinder or delay creditors in collection]; Annod Corp. v. Hamilton & Samuels (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 1286, 1298 [proof of fraudulent intent in conveyances often is inferences from the surrounding circumstances].)

  • Hearing

    Aug 06, 2019

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

MUNOZ VS PL HOTEL GROUP LLC

In 1986, California enacted a version of the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (UFTA), which had been revised by the Commission on Uniform State Laws following passage of the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978. "The UFTA permits defrauded creditors to reach property in the hands of a transferee." (Mejia v. Reed (2003) 31 Cal.4th 657, 663.)

  • Hearing

    Aug 06, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

BERG VS. HOYT

Defendants argue the motion should be denied because plaintiff’s new proposed cause of action for fraudulent transfer under the UVTA is not properly stated against the new proposed defendant, Hailey Hoyt. This argument is better left for a future demurrer (by the newly added defendant, no less) or motion for judgment on the pleadings, however, as such grounds are premature at this stage. After leave to amend is granted, the defendants will have the opportunity to attack the validity of the claim.

  • Hearing

    Aug 02, 2019

DP SLF II, LLC VS. SHOPOFF

As to the UVTA claim, “the FAA requires enforcement of agreements to arbitrate not only contract claims, but statutory claims as well.” (Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis (2018) 138 S.Ct. 1612, 1644.) The FAA’s “mandate may be overridden by a contrary congressional command.” (Shearson/American Exp., Inc. v. McMahon (1987) 482 U.S. 220, 226–227.) No contrary command has been demonstrated as to the UVTA claim. Further, “[a]n arbitration agreement constitutes a waiver of the right to a jury trial.” (Lawrence v.

  • Hearing

    Aug 01, 2019

OXFORD LF1, LLC VS. THE SHOPOFF REVOCABLE TRUST DATED AUGUST 12, 2004

Plaintiffs are correct that a “creditor” under the UVTA includes a person with a “right to payment” that is “contingent” or “unmatured.” (Civ. Code, § 3439.01(b), (c).) However, regardless of whether it is contingent or unmatured, Plaintiffs’ right to payment inevitably flows through the put option agreements.

  • Hearing

    Aug 01, 2019

ROCHE HAHAN, ET AL VS. MORNING CHUANG, ET AL

The First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), filed March 14, 2019, alleges causes of action for: (1) fraudulent transfer of personal property (actual fraud) pursuant to Civil Code, §3439.04(a); (2) fraudulent transfer of property (actual fraud) pursuant to civil Code §3439.05 (request for damages under section 3439.08(b)(1)); and (3) conspiracy to commit fraudulent transfer.

  • Hearing

    Jul 19, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

ALEJANDRO CASTILLO VASQUEZ VS JOSE ALFREDO JIMENEZ

Fraudulent Transfer in Violation of Civil Code Section 3439.04 4. Conspiracy 5. Declaratory Relief On March 12, 2018, Jimenez’s and Jimenez Jr.’s defaults were entered. On September 6, 2018, La Mangoneada LLC’s default was entered. On September 14, 2018, Plaintiff dismissed La Michoacana-La Reyna and Does 1-100, without prejudice. On September 14, 2018, default judgment was entered against Jimenez and Jimenez Jr.

  • Hearing

    Jul 18, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

CORTINA V. NATC

See the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act, found at Civil Code sections 3439 et. seq. and Mejia v. Reed (2003) 31 Cal. 4th 657. The transfer here occurred after the Court found liability on the part of defendant; the question now is how much will it have to pay?

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2019

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

JOSE HURTADO VARELA VS ANAIT OGANESIAN, ET AL.

The complaint, filed November 27, 2018, alleges two causes of action to set aside the fraudulent transfer of real property pursuant to Civil Code, §3439.04(a)(1). On June 10, 2019, Plaintiff filed this instant motion for leave to amend the complaint. On June 25, 2019, Anait Oganesian filed a Statement of Non-Opposition to the motion. The Court is not in receipt of any opposition brief from the remaining Defendants.

  • Hearing

    Jul 05, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

DP SLF II, LLC VS. SHOPOFF

Are claims for violations of the Uniform Voidable Transaction Act (the “UVTA”) arbitrable? 2. If so, is Plaintiff’s UVTA claim arbitrable under the equitable estoppel doctrine? (See Kramer v. Toyota Motor Corp. (9th Cir. 2013) 705 F.3d 1122, 1128–1129.) 3. If the UVTA claim is not arbitrable, should it be stayed if the breach of contract claim is sent to arbitration? The parties should file briefs of no more than 12 pages at least 14 calendar days prior to the hearing.

  • Hearing

    Jul 01, 2019

INTERNATIONAL TRADING ASSOCIATES, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS RED AND WHITE DISTRIBUTION OF SACRAMENTO, LLC; A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

. § 3439.04(a)(2).) The debtor must have: (1) engaged or was about to engage in a business or a transaction for which the remaining assets of the debtor were unreasonably small in relation to the business or transaction or; (2) [i]ntended to incur, or believed or reasonably should have believed that the debtor would incur, debts beyond which the debtor’s ability to pay as they became due. (Code Civ. Proc. § 3439.04(a)(2)(A)-(B).)

  • Hearing

    Jun 25, 2019

EULALIO GONZALEZ VS A'LA CARTE CATERING INC ET AL

First Cause of Action: Fraudulent Transfer: DENIED The elements of fraudulent transfer claim are set forth in the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (“UFTA”), codified as 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.” Kirkeby v. Superior Court of Orange County (2004) 33 Cal.4th 642, 648 (citation and internal quotations omitted.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 20, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

LEODEGARO SANTA CRUZ VS ROSA PEREZ

Plaintiffs seek to add UVTA causes of action against Defendants and others that participated in the alleged fraudulent transfer of the Rialto Property. Plaintiffs also seek to litigate the speculative investment real estate (the “Arizona Property) in which Defendants allegedly used improper loan funds provided by Plaintiffs to Defendants. The Court finds that judicial efficiency favors resolving all of the parties’ disputed matters in the same lawsuit. Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED.

  • Hearing

    Jun 18, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

DAVID AZIZI VS. BEHNAM RAFALIAN, ET AL.

The Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (“UFTA”) requires an action be brought within four years of the transfer or within one year after the transfer could have reasonably been discovered. (Civ. Code, § 3439.09(a).) The statute of limitations for a common law fraudulent transfer claim is three years and accrues with discovery of the transfer. (C.C.P., § 338(d).) For both types of claims, there is a seven-year statute of repose. (Civ. Code, § 3439.09(c).)

  • Hearing

    Jun 18, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

  • Judge

    Maurice A. Leiter or Salvatore Sirna

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  « 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.