Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
9 California opinions name it 2 courts 2004–2019 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Salomon v. Kaiser (In re Kaiser)green2 sentences2017Thus the court may appropriately take into account all indicia negativing as well as those suggesting fraud, as illustrated in the following reported cases: [¶] (a) Whether the transfer or obligation was to an insider: Salomon v. Kaiser (In re Kaiser), 722 F.2d 1574, 1582-83 (2d Cir. 1983) (insolvent debtor‟s purchase of two residences in the name of his spouse and the creation of a dummy corporation for the purpose of concealing assets held to evidence fraudulent intent).” (Assem. 2017Thus the court may appropriately take into account all indicia negativing as well as those suggesting fraud, as illustrated in the following reported cases: [¶] (a) Whether the transfer or obligation was to an insider: Salomon v. Kaiser ( In re Kaiser), 722 F.2d 1574 , 1582-83 (2d Cir. 1983) (insolvent debtor's purchase of two residences in the name of his spouse and the creation of a dummy corporation for the purpose of concealing assets held to evidence fraudulent intent)." (Assem. | 2 | 3 |
National Loan Investors, L.P. v. World Properties, LLCgreen2 sentences2017(See, e.g., Renda v. Nevarez (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 1231 , 1234, 167 Cal.Rptr.3d 874 [judgment debtor transferred assets "to various sham entities" to avoid judgment enforcement]; Kraft Power Corp. v. Merrill (2013) 464 Mass. 145 , 981 N.E.2d 671 , 677 [transfer to "sham corporations"]; Vaughan v. Graves (Okla. 2012) 291 P.3d 623 , 625 ["sham corporation"]; Sterquell v. Scott (Tex.App. 2004) 140 S.W.3d 453 , 460 ["sham entities"].) Transfers to bogus corporations that are wholly owned and controlled by the debtor are "transfers" for purposes of the UFTA. ( National Loan Investors , L.P. v. Wor 2017(See, e.g., Renda v. Nevarez (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 1231 , 1234, 167 Cal.Rptr.3d 874 [judgment debtor transferred assets "to various sham entities" to avoid judgment enforcement]; Kraft Power Corp. v. Merrill (2013) 464 Mass. 145 , 981 N.E.2d 671 , 677 [transfer to "sham corporations"]; Vaughan v. Graves (Okla. 2012) 291 P.3d 623 , 625 ["sham corporation"]; Sterquell v. Scott (Tex.App. 2004) 140 S.W.3d 453 , 460 ["sham entities"].) Transfers to bogus corporations that are wholly owned and controlled by the debtor are "transfers" for purposes of the UFTA. ( National Loan Investors , L.P. v. Wor | 2 | 3 |
Woodell v. Transflorida Bankgreen2 sentences2017Lexis 49980, *4-*5 [summary judgment granted to receiver on UFTA claim alleging employee of receivership entity fraudulently entered into employment contract between receivership entity and a bogus corporation of which she was “the found[ing], sole member,” “that never actually did any business,” and “had no office and had no employees”]; Woodell v. TransFlorida Bank 19 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App. 1998) 717 So.2d 108, 110 [UFTA applied to “shell entities known to be acting as alter-egos or agents of the judgment debtors”].)10 Moreover, the Legislature envisioned that the type of transaction that occurre 2017Lexis 49980 [summary judgment granted to receiver on UFTA claim alleging employee of receivership entity fraudulently entered into employment contract between receivership entity and a bogus corporation of which she was "the found[ing], sole member," "that never actually did any business," and "had no office and had no employees"]; Woodell v. TransFlorida Bank (Fla.Dist.Ct.App. 1998) 717 So.2d 108 , 110 *174 [UFTA applied to "shell entities known to be acting as alter-egos or agents of the judgment debtors"].) 10 Moreover, the Legislature envisioned that the type of transaction that occurred i | 2 | 3 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Forum Insurance v. Devere Ltd.
green
2 sentences2019Upon finding a UFTA violation, the court may cancel the transfer or impose a lien against the transferred property, but it may not award damages." ( Ibid. ) It further concluded, "A conspiracy claim does not expand the remedies afforded by UFTA." ( Ibid. ) 2019Upon finding a UFTA violation, the court may cancel the transfer or impose a lien against the transferred property, but it may not award damages." ( Ibid. ) It further concluded, "A conspiracy claim does not expand the remedies afforded by UFTA." ( Ibid. ) | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Gray1 CPB, LLC v. SCC Acquisitions, Inc.
green
2 sentences2019Upon finding a UFTA violation, the court may cancel the transfer or impose a lien against the transferred property, but it may not award damages.” (Ibid.) It further concluded, “A conspiracy claim does not expand the remedies afforded by UFTA.” (Ibid.) 10 233 Cal.App.4th 882 does not compel us to find otherwise. 2019Upon finding a UFTA violation, the court may cancel the transfer or impose a lien against the transferred property, but it may not award damages.” (Ibid.) It further concluded, “A conspiracy claim does not expand the remedies afforded by UFTA.” (Ibid.) 10 233 Cal.App.4th 882 does not compel us to find otherwise. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Renda v. Nevarez
green
2 sentences2017(See, e.g., Renda v. Nevarez (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 1231 , 1234, 167 Cal.Rptr.3d 874 [judgment debtor transferred assets "to various sham entities" to avoid judgment enforcement]; Kraft Power Corp. v. Merrill (2013) 464 Mass. 145 , 981 N.E.2d 671 , 677 [transfer to "sham corporations"]; Vaughan v. Graves (Okla. 2012) 291 P.3d 623 , 625 ["sham corporation"]; Sterquell v. Scott (Tex.App. 2004) 140 S.W.3d 453 , 460 ["sham entities"].) Transfers to bogus corporations that are wholly owned and controlled by the debtor are "transfers" for purposes of the UFTA. ( National Loan Investors , L.P. v. Wor 2017(See, e.g., Renda v. Nevarez (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 1231 , 1234, 167 Cal.Rptr.3d 874 [judgment debtor transferred assets "to various sham entities" to avoid judgment enforcement]; Kraft Power Corp. v. Merrill (2013) 464 Mass. 145 , 981 N.E.2d 671 , 677 [transfer to "sham corporations"]; Vaughan v. Graves (Okla. 2012) 291 P.3d 623 , 625 ["sham corporation"]; Sterquell v. Scott (Tex.App. 2004) 140 S.W.3d 453 , 460 ["sham entities"].) Transfers to bogus corporations that are wholly owned and controlled by the debtor are "transfers" for purposes of the UFTA. ( National Loan Investors , L.P. v. Wor | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Kraft Power Corp. v. Merrill
green
2 sentences2017(See, e.g., Renda v. Nevarez (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 1231 , 1234, 167 Cal.Rptr.3d 874 [judgment debtor transferred assets "to various sham entities" to avoid judgment enforcement]; Kraft Power Corp. v. Merrill (2013) 464 Mass. 145 , 981 N.E.2d 671 , 677 [transfer to "sham corporations"]; Vaughan v. Graves (Okla. 2012) 291 P.3d 623 , 625 ["sham corporation"]; Sterquell v. Scott (Tex.App. 2004) 140 S.W.3d 453 , 460 ["sham entities"].) Transfers to bogus corporations that are wholly owned and controlled by the debtor are "transfers" for purposes of the UFTA. ( National Loan Investors , L.P. v. Wor 2017(See, e.g., Renda v. Nevarez (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 1231 , 1234, 167 Cal.Rptr.3d 874 [judgment debtor transferred assets "to various sham entities" to avoid judgment enforcement]; Kraft Power Corp. v. Merrill (2013) 464 Mass. 145 , 981 N.E.2d 671 , 677 [transfer to "sham corporations"]; Vaughan v. Graves (Okla. 2012) 291 P.3d 623 , 625 ["sham corporation"]; Sterquell v. Scott (Tex.App. 2004) 140 S.W.3d 453 , 460 ["sham entities"].) Transfers to bogus corporations that are wholly owned and controlled by the debtor are "transfers" for purposes of the UFTA. ( National Loan Investors , L.P. v. Wor | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Sterquell v. Scott
green
1 sentence2017(See, e.g., Renda v. Nevarez (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 1231 , 1234, 167 Cal.Rptr.3d 874 [judgment debtor transferred assets "to various sham entities" to avoid judgment enforcement]; Kraft Power Corp. v. Merrill (2013) 464 Mass. 145 , 981 N.E.2d 671 , 677 [transfer to "sham corporations"]; Vaughan v. Graves (Okla. 2012) 291 P.3d 623 , 625 ["sham corporation"]; Sterquell v. Scott (Tex.App. 2004) 140 S.W.3d 453 , 460 ["sham entities"].) Transfers to bogus corporations that are wholly owned and controlled by the debtor are "transfers" for purposes of the UFTA. ( National Loan Investors , L.P. v. Wor | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Vaughan v. Graves
green
1 sentence2017(See, e.g., Renda v. Nevarez (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 1231 , 1234, 167 Cal.Rptr.3d 874 [judgment debtor transferred assets "to various sham entities" to avoid judgment enforcement]; Kraft Power Corp. v. Merrill (2013) 464 Mass. 145 , 981 N.E.2d 671 , 677 [transfer to "sham corporations"]; Vaughan v. Graves (Okla. 2012) 291 P.3d 623 , 625 ["sham corporation"]; Sterquell v. Scott (Tex.App. 2004) 140 S.W.3d 453 , 460 ["sham entities"].) Transfers to bogus corporations that are wholly owned and controlled by the debtor are "transfers" for purposes of the UFTA. ( National Loan Investors , L.P. v. Wor | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Kirkeby v. Superior Court of Orange County
green
2 sentences2015“The UFTA expressly provides for remedies such as attachments, injunctions, and the appointment of receivers.” ( Kirkeby, supra, 33 Cal.4th at pp. 651–652.) “‘[A]lthough [the UFTA] does not provide for notices of lis pendens, it does not exclude them either.’” (Kirkeby, at p. 652.) The Kirkeby court described the language in Civil Code section 3439.07, subdivision (a)(3)(C) that a 7 creditor bringing a UFTA claim is entitled to “[a]ny other relief the circumstances may require” as “broad,” supporting the recording of a lis pendens. 2015“The UFTA expressly provides for remedies such as attachments, injunctions, and the appointment of receivers.” ( Kirkeby, supra, 33 Cal.4th at pp. 651–652.) “‘[A]lthough [the UFTA] does not provide for notices of lis pendens, it does not exclude them either.’” (Kirkeby, at p. 652.) The Kirkeby court described the language in Civil Code section 3439.07, subdivision (a)(3)(C) that a 7 creditor bringing a UFTA claim is entitled to “[a]ny other relief the circumstances may require” as “broad,” supporting the recording of a lis pendens. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Levy-Zentner Co. v. SOUTHERN PAC. TRANSPORTATION
green
1 sentence2014(Levy-Zentner Co., supra, 74 Cal.App.3d at p. 798 .) “[W]here a defendant does not know what amount he owes and cannot ascertain it except by accord or judicial process, he cannot be in default for not paying it.” (Id. at p. 799.) In her UFTA claim against Frey, Patti alleged that she had suffered total damages of at least $2 million. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Reddy v. Gonzalez
green
2 sentences2009In support of its position, Fidelity cites Reddy v. Gonzalez (1992) 8 Cal.App.4th 118 [ 10 Cal.Rptr.2d 55 , 10 Cal.Rptr.2d 58 ] (Reddy). 2009In support of its position, Fidelity cites Reddy v. Gonzalez (1992) 8 Cal.App.4th 118 [ 10 Cal.Rptr.2d 55 , 10 Cal.Rptr.2d 58 ] (Reddy). | 1 | 2009–2009 |
California Federal Bank v. Matreyek
green
2 sentences2009In support of its position, Fidelity cites Reddy v. Gonzalez (1992) 8 Cal.App.4th 118 [ 10 Cal.Rptr.2d 55 , 10 Cal.Rptr.2d 58 ] (Reddy). 2009In support of its position, Fidelity cites Reddy v. Gonzalez (1992) 8 Cal.App.4th 118 [ 10 Cal.Rptr.2d 55 , 10 Cal.Rptr.2d 58 ] (Reddy). | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Hunting World, Inc. v. Superior Court
green
1 sentence2004With respect to a lis pendens as a remedy, “[although [the UFTA] does not provide for notices of lis pendens, it does not exclude them either.” (Hunting World, supra, 22 Cal.App.4th at p. 73 .) Support for including a lis pendens as a remedy is found in Civil Code section 3439.07, subdivision (a)(3)(C), which entitles a creditor bringing a UFTA claim to “[a]ny other relief the circumstances may require.” We believe that this broad language allows a lis pendens remedy. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.