Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-552a (2026)

Short title: Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Sections 52-552a to 52-552l, inclusive, may be cited as the “Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act”.

(P.A. 91-297, S. 1.)

Cited. 32 CA 537; 36 CA 305.

(Return to Chapter
Table of Contents)

(Return to
List of Chapters)

(Return to
List of Titles)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 62 cases (8 in the last 5 years), 1993–2026 · leading case: Geriatrics, Inc. v. McGee, 208 A.3d 1197 (Conn. 2019).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Geriatrics, Inc. v. McGee, 208 A.3d 1197 (Conn. 2019). · cites it 6× “The Connecticut Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (CUFTA or act), General Statutes §§ 52-552a through 52-552 l , provides relief to unsecured creditors when there has been a transfer of a debtor's assets and the circumstances establish that the transfer was fraudulent.”

Naples v. Keystone Bldg. & Dev. Corp., 990 A.2d 326 (Conn. 2010). · cites it 4× “In the sixth count, the plaintiffs claimed that Keystone, LLC, had engaged in fraud and intentional misrepresentation, and in the seventh count, the plaintiffs alleged that all defendants had violated the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (transfer act), General Statutes § 52-552a…”

Greco v. Greco, 880 A.2d 872 (Conn. 2005). · cites it 4× “That count alleged that the defendant’s transfers of certain assets were fraudulent in violation of the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act, General Statutes § 52-552a et seq., and, therefore, they should be set aside and the assets returned to the marital estate.”

Stuart v. Stuart, 996 A.2d 259 (Conn. 2010). · cites it 3× “The Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (act), General Statutes § 52-552a et seq., is silent with respect to the applicable standard of proof; nevertheless, Connecticut courts have applied the clear and convincing standard of proof to claims brought pursuant to the act.”

Davenport v. Quinn, 730 A.2d 1184 (Conn. App. Ct. 1999). · cites it 5× “, and that he had fraudulently transferred corporate assets in violation of General Statutes §§ 52-552a through 52-5521 in order to avoid payment of the default judgment.”

Mountview Plaza Assocs. Inc. v. World Wide Pet Supply, Inc., 820 A.2d 1105 (Conn. App. Ct. 2003). · cites it 6× “The first count of the complaint alleged a breach of the lease agreement against World *629 Wide Pet, the second count alleged a violation of the Unifoxm Fraudulent Transfer Act, General Statutes § 52-552a et seq., against Pet Fanatic, and the third count alleged breach of the…”

Litchfield Asset Mgmt. Corp. v. Howell, 799 A.2d 298 (Conn. App. Ct. 2002). · cites it 2× “The Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act, General Statutes §§ 52-552a to 52-552Ü “is largely an adoption and clarification of the standards of the common law [of fraudulent conveyances].”

Connecticut Nat'l Bank v. D'Onofrio, 699 A.2d 237 (Conn. App. Ct. 1997). · cites it 6× “In October, *207 1991, however, § 52-552 was repealed and replaced by the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (UFTA); General Statutes §§ 52-552a through 52-5521; which established three different statutes of limitations, depending on the type of fraudulent transfer.”

Wieselman v. Hoeniger, 930 A.2d 768 (Conn. App. Ct. 2007). · cites it 3× “The Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (act), General Statutes § 52-552a et seq., which was in effect at the time of the conveyance at issue, “is largely an adoption and clarification of the standards of the common law [of fraudulent conveyances].”

Cadle Co. v. Gabel, 794 A.2d 1029 (Conn. App. Ct. 2002). · cites it 2× “The complaint alleged a scheme whereby the defendants fraudulently transferred assets of Lawrence Gabel to avoid the payment of the 1994 judgment debt that had been obtained by Branford and subsequently assigned to the plaintiff in violation of the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer…”

Nat'l Loan Investors, L.P. v. World Props., LLC, 830 A.2d 1178 (Conn. App. Ct. 2003). · cites it 2× “1 On appeal, the defendants claim that the court improperly (1) concluded that their real property in Enfield was an asset under the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (UFTA), General Statutes § 52-552a et seq., (2) held that two counts of the plaintiffs complaint in the second…”

Canty v. Otto, 41 A.3d 280 (Conn. 2012). · cites it 2× “(Otto), cannot collect the debt from the defendant, a nondebtor spouse, by bringing a claim under the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (act), General Statutes § 52-552a et seq. Specifically, the defendant claims that: (1) the plaintiff lacks standing to bring a claim under the…”

Show all 62 citing cases →

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.