Delaware Code
6 Del. C. § 1309 (2026)
Extinguishment of cause of action
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
DE-DELCdelcode.delaware.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
A cause of action with respect to a fraudulent transfer or obligation under this chapter is extinguished unless action is brought:
(1) Under § 1304(a)(1) of this title, within 4 years after the transfer was made or the obligation was incurred or, if later, within 1 year after the transfer or obligation was or could reasonably have been discovered by the claimant;
(2) Under § 1304(a)(2) or § 1305(a) of this title, within 4 years after the transfer was made or the obligation was incurred; or
(3) Under § 1305(b) of this title, within 1 year after the transfer was made or the obligation was incurred.
70 Del. Laws, c. 434, § 1;Notes of Decisions
Cited in 24
cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1969–2026 · leading case: Marnavi S.p.A. v. Keehan, 900 F. Supp. 2d 377 (D. Del. 2012).
Marnavi S.p.A. v. Keehan, 900 F. Supp. 2d 377 (D. Del. 2012). “With respect to Plaintiffs fraudulent conveyance claims, the statute of limitations, pursuant to 6 Del. C. § 1309, is “4 years after the transfer was made or the obligation was incurred or, if later, within 1 year after the transfer or obligation was or could reasonably have…”
ASARCO LLC v. Americas Mining Corp., 396 B.R. 278 (S.D. Tex. 2008). “Twenty-Third Defense — Limitations AMC next contends that Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations or repose.”
China Resource Prods. (U.S.A.) Ltd. v. Fayda Int'l, Inc., 788 F. Supp. 815 (D. Del. 1992). “” 6 Del.Code § 1309(a) (“Section 1309(a)”).”
Diamond Chapter 7 v. Friedman (In Re Century City Doctors Hosp., LLC), 466 B.R. 1 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 2012). “6 Del. C. § 1309. Thus, a fraudulent transfer claim under DUFTA would also be timely.”
Sonne v. Sacks, 314 A.2d 194 (Del. 1973). “Possibly any tangible assets transferred by it without consideration to Mar jean could be seized under an execution on this judgment under the Uniform Fraudulent Conveyance Act, 6 Del.C. § 1309, which permits a judgment creditor to ignore the conveyance and seize such assets on…”
United States v. West, 299 F. Supp. 661 (D. Del. 1969). “7 Since the intervenor, Douglas West, is a purchaser of the property in question from the fraudulent grantee, David West, he is subject to having the conveyance set aside and to any other remedies which would normally be available to the defrauded creditor just as though the…”
Comput. Sciences Corp. v. SCI-TEK, Inc., 367 A.2d 658 (Del. Super. Ct. 1976). “CSC also argues that the assignment of the computers by Sci-Tek was a fraudulent conveyance of assets within the meaning of 6 Del.”
Richard F. Burkhart v. Genworth Fin., Inc. (Del. Ch. 2020). “109 6 Del. C. § 1309 (setting a 4 year statute of limitations for claims brought under Sections 1304(a)(1) & (a)(2) and 1305(a)).”
Hasbro, Inc. v. Amron, 419 F. Supp. 2d 678 (E.D. Pa. 2006). “2003); 6 Del. C. § 1309. In addition, a counterclaim is an action for statute of limitations purposes.”
Bellis v. Morgan Trucking, Inc., 375 F. Supp. 862 (D. Del. 1974). “6 Del.C. § 1309(a)(2). Neither the real estate nor the cinder block building was ever owned by Trucking, Inc.”
Est. of Martha Barotz v. Wilmington Sav. Fund Soc'y, FSB (Del. Ch. 2026). “99 6 Del. C. § 1309(1). 100 Pereyron v. Leon Constantin Consulting, Inc.”
In re W.J. Bradley Mortg. Capital, LLC, 598 B.R. 150 (2019). “" 6 Del. C. §§ 1309(1), (2). "It is undisputed that the Delaware .”
— 6 Del. C. § 1309(1) — 10 cases
Richard F. Burkhart v. Genworth Fin., Inc. (Del. Ch. 2020). “109 6 Del. C. § 1309 (setting a 4 year statute of limitations for claims brought under Sections 1304(a)(1) & (a)(2) and 1305(a)).”
In re W.J. Bradley Mortg. Capital, LLC, 598 B.R. 150 (2019). “" 6 Del. C. §§ 1309(1), (2). "It is undisputed that the Delaware .”
Est. of Martha Barotz v. Wilmington Sav. Fund Soc'y, FSB (Del. Ch. 2026). “99 6 Del. C. § 1309(1). 100 Pereyron v. Leon Constantin Consulting, Inc.”
Seiden v. Kaneko (Del. Ch. 2015).
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Claudio Ballard (Del. Ch. 2019).
— 6 Del. C. § 1309(2) — 3 cases
Richard F. Burkhart v. Genworth Fin., Inc. (Del. Ch. 2020). “109 6 Del. C. § 1309 (setting a 4 year statute of limitations for claims brought under Sections 1304(a)(1) & (a)(2) and 1305(a)).”
Our Alchemy, LLC - Adversary Proceeding (Bankr. D. Del. 2022).
Est. of Martha Barotz v. Wilmington Sav. Fund Soc'y, FSB (Del. Ch. 2026). “99 6 Del. C. § 1309(1). 100 Pereyron v. Leon Constantin Consulting, Inc.”
— 6 Del. C. § 1309(a) — 2 cases
China Resource Prods. (U.S.A.) Ltd. v. Fayda Int'l, Inc., 788 F. Supp. 815 (D. Del. 1992). “” 6 Del.Code § 1309(a) (“Section 1309(a)”).”
United States v. West, 299 F. Supp. 661 (D. Del. 1969). “7 Since the intervenor, Douglas West, is a purchaser of the property in question from the fraudulent grantee, David West, he is subject to having the conveyance set aside and to any other remedies which would normally be available to the defrauded creditor just as though the…”
— 6 Del. C. § 1309(a)(2) — 2 cases
Comput. Sciences Corp. v. SCI-TEK, Inc., 367 A.2d 658 (Del. Super. Ct. 1976). “CSC also argues that the assignment of the computers by Sci-Tek was a fraudulent conveyance of assets within the meaning of 6 Del.”
Bellis v. Morgan Trucking, Inc., 375 F. Supp. 862 (D. Del. 1974). “6 Del.C. § 1309(a)(2). Neither the real estate nor the cinder block building was ever owned by Trucking, Inc.”
— 6 Del. C. § 1309(l) — 1 case
ASARCO LLC v. Americas Mining Corp., 396 B.R. 278 (S.D. Tex. 2008). “Twenty-Third Defense — Limitations AMC next contends that Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations or repose.”
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.