The Uniform Voidable Transactions Act (previously known as the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act) essentially provides for a mechanism to void transfers made with the actual intent to “hinder, delay, or defraud any creditor.” (Code of Civ. Proc., 3439.04(a)(1).) The Act provides authority for the avoidance of a transfer as well as the obtainment of an injunction to prevent any further transfers. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 3439.07(a)(1); Code of Civ. Proc., § 3439.07(a)(3)(A).) It also “permits defrauded creditors to reach property in the hands of a transferee.” (Mejia v. Reed (2003) 31 Cal.4th 657, 663.)
“[A] suit under the [Uniform Voidable Transactions Act] is not the exclusive remedy by which fraudulent transfers may be attacked. Principles of law and equity, including estoppel, fraud, misrepresentation ‘or other validating or invalidating cause,’ are available to supplement an action under UFTA.” (Jhaveri v. Teitelbaum (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 740, 755, 98 Cal.Rptr.3d 268.)
A plaintiff may make either, or both, a common law fraudulent conveyance claim and a fraudulent transfer claim pursuant to the Uniform Voidable Transactions Act (UVTA). (Macedo v. Bosio (2001) 86 Cal.App.4th 1044, 1051; PGA West Residential Assn., Inc. v. Hulven Internat., Inc. (2017) 14 Cal.App.5th 156, 170; Wisden v. Super. Ct. (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 750, 758.) A fraudulent conveyance under the Act 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.” (Kirkeby v. Super. Ct. (2004) 33 Cal.4th 642, 648.) Case law establishes that these fraudulent conveyance actions are real property claims. (Id. at p. 649.)
“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:
(Code of Civ. Proc., § 3439.04(a).)
In determining “actual intent,” any or all of the following factors may be considered:
SULLIVAN & ASSOCIATES, APC demurrers to the Fifth Cause of Action for Fraudulent Transfer in Violation of Civil Code§3439.04(a)(1) on the grounds it fails to state facts constituting a cause of action against Defendant PAUL F. SULLIVAN & ASSOCIATES, APC and is uncertain. (Code of Civil Procedure §§430.10(e) and (f).) The fifth, sixth, and seventh causes of action are based in fraudulent conveyance as set forth in the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (“UFTA”) Civ. Code § 3439, et seq.
Jan 20, 2021
Real Property
Landlord Tenant
Los Angeles County, CA
Reviewed documents re same. 0.9 $195 $ 175.50 7/16/2020 Michael Wallin Drafted lis pendens re APN 2190-004-028. 0.4 $195 $ 78.00 9/1/2020 Michael Wallin Drafted opposition to Moghim's motion to expunge lis pendens re 2157 Mount Olympus. 4.6 $195 $ 897.00 9/15/2020 Michael Wallin Drafted Requests for Admission to Sunset Horizon LLC. 0.9 $195 $ 175.50 11/10/2020 Justin Wolf Started preparation of written discovery (Form Interrogatories and Requests for Admission) for both UVTA cases 3.8
Jan 08, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
A “fraudulent conveyance” under the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act, 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. (Filip v. Bucurenciu (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 825, 829.) Fraud may be actual or constructive, and transfers are voidable as to present and future creditors. (Civ. Code § 3439.04; Optional Capital, Inc. v. DAS Corp. (2014) 222 Cal.App.4th 1388, 1401.)
Jan 06, 2021
Riverside County, CA
The Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act provides a statutory remedy to creditors to collect their debts when the debtor has transferred, or conveyed, the debtor’s assets to third parties to avoid payment. See CC 3439, et seq.; Mejia (2003) 31 C4th 657, 664. Here, Plaintiff’s claim for fraudulent transfer arises out of Defendants’ alleged fraudulent transfer of assets, not out of Defendants’ conduct in the enforcement of judgment proceedings.
Jan 04, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiffs have not provided any authority that Section 527 permits the Court to void a transfer that has already occurred in absence of a UVTA claim. Accordingly, Plaintiffs have not established that they are entitled to the relief requested pursuant to Cal. Code Civ. Pro. §527. Further, the Court does not have jurisdiction over the holder of the deed as he is not a party to the action.
Dec 28, 2020
Riverside County, CA
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:
Dec 22, 2020
Orange County, CA
The Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (“UTFA”) allows defrauded creditors to “reach property in the hands of a transferee.” (Mejia v. Reed (2003) 31 Cal.4th 657, 663; see Civ. Code §§ 3439 et seq.) “Whether a conveyance was made with fraudulent intent is a question of fact, and proof often consists of inferences from the circumstances surrounding the transfer.” (Filip v. Bucurenciu (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 825, 834, internal citations omitted.)
Dec 21, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
The Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (“UTFA”) allows defrauded creditors to “reach property in the hands of a transferee.” (Mejia v. Reed (2003) 31 Cal.4th 657, 663; see Civ. Code §§ 3439 et seq.) “Whether a conveyance was made with fraudulent intent is a question of fact, and proof often consists of inferences from the circumstances surrounding the transfer.” (Filip v. Bucurenciu (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 825, 834, internal citations omitted.)
Dec 21, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
(b) Under paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 3439.04 or Section 3439.05, not later than four years after the transfer was made or the obligation was incurred. (c) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a cause of action under this chapter with respect to a transfer or obligation is extinguished if no action is brought or levy made within seven years after the transfer was made or the obligation was incurred.
Dec 18, 2020
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
San Diego County, CA
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
Dec 18, 2020
Real Property
other
Los Angeles County, CA
(b) Under paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 3439.04 or Section 3439.05, not later than four years after the transfer was made or the obligation was incurred. (c) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a cause of action under this chapter with respect to a transfer or obligation is extinguished if no action is brought or levy made within seven years after the transfer was made or the obligation was incurred.
Dec 18, 2020
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
San Diego County, CA
(b) Under paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 3439.04 or Section 3439.05, not later than four years after the transfer was made or the obligation was incurred. (c) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a cause of action under this chapter with respect to a transfer or obligation is extinguished if no action is brought or levy made within seven years after the transfer was made or the obligation was incurred.
Dec 18, 2020
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
San Diego County, CA
(b) Under paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 3439.04 or Section 3439.05, not later than four years after the transfer was made or the obligation was incurred. (c) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a cause of action under this chapter with respect to a transfer or obligation is extinguished if no action is brought or levy made within seven years after the transfer was made or the obligation was incurred.
Dec 18, 2020
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
San Diego County, CA
These contradictory allegations make the UVTA cause of action defective. However, solvency is one of many factors to consider for intent to hinder, delay, or defraud creditors that a court considers for the intent requirement under Civil Code section 3439.04. On reply, Defendants also argue that Plaintiff has not pled that Defendants transferred the funds. However, Plaintiff did allege that Defendants transferred the funds. (See SAC ¶ 52.). Therefore, the demurrer is overruled.
Dec 18, 2020
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
Los Angeles County, CA
(b) Under paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 3439.04 or Section 3439.05, not later than four years after the transfer was made or the obligation was incurred. (c) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a cause of action under this chapter with respect to a transfer or obligation is extinguished if no action is brought or levy made within seven years after the transfer was made or the obligation was incurred.
Dec 18, 2020
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
San Diego County, CA
Civil Code section 3439.04 . . . provides that a transfer is fraudulent if the debtor did not receive reasonably equivalent consideration and either ‘(1) Was engaged or 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) Intended to incur, or believed or reasonably should have believed that he or she would incur, debts beyond his or her ability to pay as they became due.’
Dec 11, 2020
Contract
Breach
Los Angeles County, CA
Code § 3439.04(a).)
Dec 10, 2020
Solano County, CA
“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.’ [Citation.]
Dec 10, 2020
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
Los Angeles County, CA
Code, 8 § 3439.04, subd. (a)(1)), (2) constructive fraudulent conveyance (Civ. Code, § 3439.04, subd. 9 (a)(2)), (3) constructive fraudulent conveyance (Civ. Code, § 3439.05), and (4) common law 10 fraudulent conveyance, as well as claims for (5) conspiracy to commit fraudulent conveyance 11 and (6) aiding and abetting fraudulent conveyance against all defendants. Plaintiffs also assert 12 claims for (7) failure to allow inspection of corporate records – demand for right to inspect 13 (Corp.
Dec 09, 2020
Santa Clara County, CA
Fraudulent Transfer Under the uniform fraudulent transfer act, “[p]roperty to the extent it is encumbered by a valid lien” is not considered an “asset.” Cal. Civ. Code §3439.01. Transfer of an encumbered piece of property can be subject to the UFTA if it is transferred for “far less than its appraised worth,” and if its value exceeds the amount of the encumbrance. Filip v. Bucurenciu (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 825, 835.
Dec 08, 2020
Real Property
other
Los Angeles County, CA
Under Section of California Civil Code section 3439.04, a fraudulent transfer exists when either: (1) a debtor makes a transfer or incurs an obligation with actual intent to hinder, delay or defraud any creditor, or (2) debtor receives less than reasonably equivalent value for the transfer or obligation and debtor is insolvent or is reasonably expected to become insolvent. In opposition, plaintiff claims the allegations relating to a fraudulent transfer should remain.
Dec 08, 2020
Real Property
other
Los Angeles County, CA
But it appears that the only causes of action that expressly invoke Josh’s alleged alter ego status are cause of action 2 (breach of contract), and cause of action 32 (UVTA). Plaintiff has conceded the demurrer as to cause of action 2. Given the absence of any attack in the demurrer on Josh’s alter ego status as such, however, the Court overrules the demurrer as to cause of action 32 only, and as to Josh only.
Dec 04, 2020
Contra Costa County, CA
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.)
Dec 01, 2020
Orange County, CA
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
Nov 24, 2020
Orange County, CA
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.
Nov 20, 2020
Orange County, CA
Please wait a moment while we load this page.
