(a) A transfer made by a debtor is voidable as to a creditor, whether the creditor’s claim arose before or after the transfer was made, if the debtor made the transfer:
(1) with actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud any creditor of the debtor; or
(2) without receiving a reasonably equivalent value in exchange for the transfer, and the debtor:
(i) was 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
(ii) intended to incur, or believed or reasonably should have believed that the debtor would incur, debts beyond the debtor’s ability to pay as they became due.
(b) In determining actual intent under subsection (a)(1), consideration may be given, among other factors, to whether:
(1) the transfer was to an insider;
(2) the debtor retained possession or control of the property transferred after the transfer;
(3) the transfer was concealed or not disclosed;
(4) before the transfer was made, the debtor had been sued or threatened with suit;
(5) the transfer was of substantially all the debtor’s assets;
(6) the debtor absconded;
(7) the debtor removed or concealed assets;
(8) the value of the consideration received by the debtor was not reasonably equivalent to the value of the asset transferred;
(9) the debtor was insolvent or became insolvent shortly after the transfer was made;
(10) the transfer occurred shortly before or shortly after a substantial debt was incurred; and
(11) the debtor transferred the essential assets of the business to a lienor that transferred the assets to an insider of the debtor.
(c) A creditor making a claim for relief under subsection (a) has the burden of proving the elements of the claim for relief by a preponderance of the evidence.
(Act 2018-163, §1.)
Notes of Decisions
Balanced Bridge Funding, LLC v. Danielle Elise Kimbrough (N.D. Ala. 2024).
· cites it 5× “Code § 8 -9A-4(a), § 8-9B-5(a)(1). The statutes list factors that suggest an intent to defraud, including: transfer to an insider, the debtor retaining possession and control of the property, and the debtor being threatened with suit directly before the transfer.”
— Ala. Code § 8-9B-5(a)(1) — 1 case
Balanced Bridge Funding, LLC v. Danielle Elise Kimbrough (N.D. Ala. 2024).
“Code § 8 -9A-4(a), § 8-9B-5(a)(1). The statutes list factors that suggest an intent to defraud, including: transfer to an insider, the debtor retaining possession and control of the property, and the debtor being threatened with suit directly before the transfer.”
— Ala. Code § 8-9B-5(b) — 1 case
Balanced Bridge Funding, LLC v. Danielle Elise Kimbrough (N.D. Ala. 2024).
“Code § 8 -9A-4(a), § 8-9B-5(a)(1). The statutes list factors that suggest an intent to defraud, including: transfer to an insider, the debtor retaining possession and control of the property, and the debtor being threatened with suit directly before the transfer.”
— Ala. Code § 8-9B-5(b)(1) — 1 case
Balanced Bridge Funding, LLC v. Danielle Elise Kimbrough (N.D. Ala. 2024).
“Code § 8 -9A-4(a), § 8-9B-5(a)(1). The statutes list factors that suggest an intent to defraud, including: transfer to an insider, the debtor retaining possession and control of the property, and the debtor being threatened with suit directly before the transfer.”
— Ala. Code § 8-9B-5(b)(4) — 1 case
Balanced Bridge Funding, LLC v. Danielle Elise Kimbrough (N.D. Ala. 2024).
“Code § 8 -9A-4(a), § 8-9B-5(a)(1). The statutes list factors that suggest an intent to defraud, including: transfer to an insider, the debtor retaining possession and control of the property, and the debtor being threatened with suit directly before the transfer.”
— Ala. Code § 8-9B-5(b)(5) — 1 case
Balanced Bridge Funding, LLC v. Danielle Elise Kimbrough (N.D. Ala. 2024).
“Code § 8 -9A-4(a), § 8-9B-5(a)(1). The statutes list factors that suggest an intent to defraud, including: transfer to an insider, the debtor retaining possession and control of the property, and the debtor being threatened with suit directly before the transfer.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.