Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-552e (2026)

Transfers fraudulent as to present creditors

✓ current as of May 2026

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

(a) A transfer made or obligation incurred by a debtor is fraudulent as to a creditor, if the creditor's claim arose before the transfer was made or the obligation was incurred and if the debtor made the transfer or incurred the obligation: (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 or obligation, and the debtor (A) 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 (B) intended to incur, or believed or reasonably should have believed that he would incur, debts beyond his ability to pay as they became due.

(b) In determining actual intent under subdivision (1) of subsection (a) of this section, consideration may be given, among other factors, to whether: (1) The transfer or obligation was to an insider, (2) the debtor retained possession or control of the property transferred after the transfer, (3) the transfer or obligation was disclosed or concealed, (4) before the transfer was made or obligation was incurred, 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 reasonably equivalent to the value of the asset transferred or the amount of the obligation incurred, (9) the debtor was insolvent or became insolvent shortly after the transfer was made or the obligation was incurred, (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 who transferred the assets to an insider of the debtor.

(P.A. 91-297, S. 5.)

Cited. 46 CA 199; Id., 399. Determination of question of fraudulent intent is clearly an issue of fact which must often be inferred from surrounding circumstances. 54 CA 481. There is no requirement under section for a fraudulent intent with respect to transferees; where there was evidence for jury to conclude that defendant transferred his interest with actual intent to hinder, delay or defraud estate, the granting of directed verdict was improper; section adopts and clarifies common law of fraudulent conveyances, but is not a wholesale codification. 138 CA 695.

Subsec. (a):

Distribution of marital property constitutes a transfer under Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act, regardless of whether distribution occurred as part of a settlement or after a trial. 304 C. 546.

A transfer cannot be considered fraudulent if, at the time of the transfer, the transferred property is encumbered by valid liens exceeding the property's value because the property would no longer be considered an asset under Sec. 52-552b (2), and only assets may be transferred fraudulently. 191 CA 1.

Subsec. (b):

Plaintiff's claim under act is challenge to transfer of assets, not collateral attack on dissolution decree, plaintiff having been denied intervention in dissolution proceeding was a stranger to the previous litigation and thus falls under exception to rule against collateral attacks. 304 C. 546.

(Return to Chapter
Table of Contents)

(Return to
List of Chapters)

(Return to
List of Titles)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 69 cases (15 in the last 5 years), 1997–2026 · leading case: McKay v. Longman, 211 A.3d 20 (Conn. 2019).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

McKay v. Longman, 211 A.3d 20 (Conn. 2019). · cites it 38× “to 2017) § 34-130;1 (2) whether specified transfers between an owner of property and the limited liability companies of which he is either an officer or equity holder constitute fraudulent transfers under the Connecticut Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (CUFTA), General Statutes…”

Geriatrics, Inc. v. McGee, 208 A.3d 1197 (Conn. 2019). · cites it 31× “The plaintiff's supplemental brief asserted that the evidence at trial satisfied four statutory grounds- General Statutes §§ 52-552e (a) (1) and (2), and 52-552f (a) and (b).”

O'Neil v. New Eng. Rd., Inc. (In re Neri Bros. Constr. Corp.), 593 B.R. 100 (Bankr. D. Conn. 2018). · cites it 22× “DISCUSSION Counts I and II: Overview of Constructive and Intentional Fraudulent Transfers The first two counts of the complaint allege constructive and intentional fraudulent transfers by virtue of leases of construction equipment from the Debtor to NE Road.”

Canty v. Otto, 41 A.3d 280 (Conn. 2012). · cites it 13× “*289 Whether General Statutes § 52-552e grants statutory aggrievement is a question of statutory interpretation over which our review is plenary.”

Wieselman v. Hoeniger, 930 A.2d 768 (Conn. App. Ct. 2007). · cites it 16× “General Statutes § 52-552e (a) provides in relevant part that “[a] transfer made or obligation incurred by a debtor is fraudulent as to a creditor .”

Featherston v. Katchko & Son Constr. Servs., Inc., 201 Conn. App. 774 (Conn. App. Ct. 2020). · cites it 43× “Count one asserted a fraudulent transfer claim under CUFTA, specifically, General Statutes § 52-552e. Count two also asserted a fraudulent transfer claim under CUFTA, specifically, General Statutes § 52-552f.”

Kosiorek v. Smigelski, 54 A.3d 564 (Conn. App. Ct. 2012). · cites it 14× ““A party alleging a fraudulent transfer or conveyance under the common law bears the burden of proving either: (1) that the conveyance was made without substantial consideration and rendered the transferor unable to meet his obligations or (2) that the conveyance was made with a…”

Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London v. Cooperman, 957 A.2d 836 (Conn. 2008). · cites it 6× “These are also elements of an action brought pursuant to General Statutes §§ 52-552e (a) and 52-552f (a).”

Daly v. Fusco (In Re All-Type Printing Inc.), 274 B.R. 316 (Bankr. D. Conn. 2002). · cites it 12× “Under Connecticut law the Trustee has the burden of proving the elements of C.G.S. §§ 52-552e and/or 552f by clear and convincing evidence.”

Daly v. Kennedy (In Re Kennedy), 279 B.R. 455 (Bankr. D. Conn. 2002). · cites it 11× “The Trustee has the burden of proving the elements of C.G.S. §§ 52-552e and 52-552f by clear and convincing evidence.”

Carney v. Lopez, 933 F. Supp. 2d 365 (D. Conn. 2013). · cites it 9× “§ 52-552e(a)(2). CUFTA Section 52-552f(a) provides that, *382 A transfer made or obligation incurred by a debtor is fraudulent as to a creditor whose claim arose before the transfer was made or the obligation was incurred if the debtor made the transfer or incurred the…”

Daly v. Richardson (In Re Carrozzella & Richardson), 302 B.R. 415 (Bankr. D. Conn. 2003). · cites it 12× “As is plain from the language of C.G.S. §§ 52-552e and 52-552Í, transfer avoidance is available to the Trustee only if he has the status and rights of a “creditor” whose claim “arose before the transfer was made”.”

Show all 69 citing cases →

— Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-552e(a) — 12 cases

Chien v. Skystar Bio Pharm. Co., 623 F. Supp. 2d 255 (D. Conn. 2009).

Nastro v. D'onofrio, 263 F. Supp. 2d 446 (D. Conn. 2003).

Epperson v. Ent. Express, Inc., 338 F. Supp. 2d 328 (D. Conn. 2004).

IDS Holding Co., LLC v. Madsen (In Re IDS Holding Co., LLC), 292 B.R. 233 (Bankr. D. Conn. 2003).

O'Neil v. Jones (In Re Jones), 403 B.R. 228 (Bankr. D. Conn. 2009).

— Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-552e(a)(1) — 9 cases

Cendant Corp. v. Shelton, 474 F. Supp. 2d 377 (D. Conn. 2007).

Daly v. Kennedy (In Re Kennedy), 279 B.R. 455 (Bankr. D. Conn. 2002). “The Trustee has the burden of proving the elements of C.G.S. §§ 52-552e and 52-552f by clear and convincing evidence.”

Cadle Co. v. Fletcher, 151 A.3d 1262 (Conn. 2016).

William M. Anderson - Adversary Proceeding (Bankr. D. Conn. 2020).

Berman v. Pavano (Bankr. D. Conn. 2020).

— Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-552e(a)(2) — 12 cases

Carney v. Lopez, 933 F. Supp. 2d 365 (D. Conn. 2013). “§ 52-552e(a)(2). CUFTA Section 52-552f(a) provides that, *382 A transfer made or obligation incurred by a debtor is fraudulent as to a creditor whose claim arose before the transfer was made or the obligation was incurred if the debtor made the transfer or incurred the…”

Daly v. Fusco (In Re All-Type Printing Inc.), 274 B.R. 316 (Bankr. D. Conn. 2002). “Under Connecticut law the Trustee has the burden of proving the elements of C.G.S. §§ 52-552e and/or 552f by clear and convincing evidence.”

Daly v. Richardson (In Re Carrozzella & Richardson), 302 B.R. 415 (Bankr. D. Conn. 2003). “As is plain from the language of C.G.S. §§ 52-552e and 52-552Í, transfer avoidance is available to the Trustee only if he has the status and rights of a “creditor” whose claim “arose before the transfer was made”.”

Carney v. Horion Investments Ltd., 107 F. Supp. 3d 216 (D. Conn. 2015).

O'Neil v. New Eng. Rd., Inc. (In re Neri Bros. Constr. Corp.), 593 B.R. 100 (Bankr. D. Conn. 2018). “DISCUSSION Counts I and II: Overview of Constructive and Intentional Fraudulent Transfers The first two counts of the complaint allege constructive and intentional fraudulent transfers by virtue of leases of construction equipment from the Debtor to NE Road.”

— Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-552e(a)(2)(B) — 2 cases

Roumeliotis v. Johnson & Wales Univ. (In re DeMauro), 586 B.R. 379 (Bankr. D. Conn. 2018).

Floodbreak, LLC v. Diego Trust, LLC (D. Conn. 2024).

— Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-552e(a)(2)(a) — 1 case

— Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-552e(a)(l) — 8 cases

Daly v. Kennedy (In Re Kennedy), 279 B.R. 455 (Bankr. D. Conn. 2002). “The Trustee has the burden of proving the elements of C.G.S. §§ 52-552e and 52-552f by clear and convincing evidence.”

N. Tankers (Cyprus) Ltd. v. Backstrom, 967 F. Supp. 1391 (D. Conn. 1997).

— Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-552e(b) — 3 cases

Greystone Cmty. Reinvestment Ass'n v. Berean Capital, Inc., 638 F. Supp. 2d 278 (D. Conn. 2009).

Berman v. LaBonte (In re Michael S. Goldberg, LLC), 595 B.R. 119 (D. Conn. 2018).

— Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-552e(b)(1) — 1 case

— Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-552e(b)(10) — 1 case

— Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-552e(b)(2) — 1 case

— Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-552e(b)(3) — 1 case

— Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-552e(b)(4) — 1 case

— Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-552e(b)(5) — 1 case

— Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-552e(b)(6) — 1 case

— Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-552e(b)(8) — 2 cases

Floodbreak, LLC v. Diego Trust, LLC (D. Conn. 2024).

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.