Florida Statutes

Fla. Stat. § 726.106 (2025)

Transfers fraudulent as to present creditors.

✓ 2025 Florida Statutes — current through the 2025 Regular Session

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us JustiaFla. Statutes CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

726.106 Transfers fraudulent as to present creditors.—

(1) 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 obligation without receiving a reasonably equivalent value in exchange for the transfer or obligation and the debtor was insolvent at that time or the debtor became insolvent as a result of the transfer or obligation.

(2) A transfer made by a debtor is fraudulent as to a creditor whose claim arose before the transfer was made if the transfer was made to an insider for an antecedent debt, the debtor was insolvent at that time, and the insider had reasonable cause to believe that the debtor was insolvent.

History.—s. 6, ch. 87-79.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 146 cases (24 in the last 5 years), 1990–2026 · leading case: Off. Comm. of Unsecured Creditors of Toy King Distributors, Inc. v. Liberty Sav. Bank, FSB (In Re Toy King Distributors, Inc.), 256 B.R. 1 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2000).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Off. Comm. of Unsecured Creditors of Toy King Distributors, Inc. v. Liberty Sav. Bank, FSB (In Re Toy King Distributors, Inc.), 256 B.R. 1 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2000). · cites it 17× “The final “badge of fraud” implicated in this case is the debtor’s insolvency, either at the time of or as a result of the transfer. This badge of fraud is another element required to prove constructive fraud pursuant to Section 548(a)(1)(B) of the Bankruptcy Code and Section…”

Paragon Health Servs., Inc. v. Cent. Palm Beach Cmty. Mental Health Ctr., Inc., 859 So. 2d 1233 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). · cites it 17× “However, we conclude that those claims concerning profit distributions/compensation raised under section 726.106(1) are not barred by the applicable statute of limitations and have not been addressed in the motions or affidavits filed.”

Wiand v. Waxenberg, 611 F. Supp. 2d 1299 (M.D. Fla. 2009). · cites it 6× “” Fla. Stat. § 726.106 (1). Finally, § 726.”

Invo Florida, Inc. v. Somerset Venturer, Inc., 751 So. 2d 1263 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000). · cites it 7× “See § 726.106(1), Fla. Stat. (1991). These elements are different than the ones required for Invo to prove a breach of contract action and are plainly independent of the contract; thus, they are not barred by the economic loss rule.”

Off. Comm. of Unsecured Creditors v. Florida (In Re Tower Env't, Inc.), 260 B.R. 213 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 1998). · cites it 8× “For the obligation to be avoided pursuant to § 726.106, Fla.Stat., there must be a creditor with an allowable unsecured claim in this bankruptcy case which claim arose before the obligation was incurred.”

NATIONSBANK, NA v. Coastal Utils., Inc., 814 So. 2d 1227 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). · cites it 4× “Section 726.106, Florida Statutes, provides that: 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 obligation without…”

Global Technovations, Inc. v. Onkyo U.S.A. Corp. (In Re Global Technovations, Inc.), 431 B.R. 739 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 2010). · cites it 6× “As a result, the market price of GTI’s stock could not reasonably reflect the value of GTI’s investment in OAI. (Id.) IV. Discussion A.”

Nat'l Auto Serv. Centers, Inc. v. F/R 550, LLC, 192 So. 3d 498 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016). · cites it 2× “106(1); and (3) transfers to an insider of the debtor for an antecedent debt when the debtor is insolvent and the insider has reasonable cause to know that, § 726.106(2). When a transfer falls into one of these categories, FUFTA affords the creditor an array of remedies against…”

Sec. Inv. Prot. Corp. v. Old Naples Sec., Inc. (In Re Old Naples Sec., Inc.), 343 B.R. 310 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2006). · cites it 4× “In Count XIV the Trustee seeks to recover the same amount from McDermott based on Section 544(b) and Fla. Stat. §§ 726.106 (1) and 726.109. In Count XV the Trustee seeks to recover from CMSI the amount of 9,310.”

Zaki Kulaibee Establishment v. Mcflicker, 788 F. Supp. 2d 1363 (S.D. Fla. 2011). · cites it 9× “ZKE also claims that Defendants are liable under Fla. Stat. § 726.106 (1) because Defendants transferred ZKE’s property and the proceeds of ZKE’s property, or incurred obligations at a time when ZKE already had claims against defendants.”

Bakst v. United States (In re Kane & Kane), 479 B.R. 617 (Bankr. S.D. Florida 2012). · cites it 5× “The Trustee also requests that the Court exclude the expert reports and deposition testimony of two experts offered by the Defendant: James F. Reda, whose testimony is offered as evidence demonstrating that the Debtor received reasonably equivalent value in exchange for the…”

Friedman v. Heart Inst. of Port St. Lucie, Inc., 863 So. 2d 189 (Fla. 2003). · cites it 2× “" § 726.106(1), Fla. Stat. (2002). To utilize the protections of chapter 726, however, a plaintiff must show that he or she has a "claim" which qualifies the party as a "creditor.”

Show all 146 citing cases →

— 726.106(1) — 68 cases

Wiand v. Waxenberg, 611 F. Supp. 2d 1299 (M.D. Fla. 2009). “” Fla. Stat. § 726.106 (1). Finally, § 726.”

Global Technovations, Inc. v. Onkyo U.S.A. Corp. (In Re Global Technovations, Inc.), 431 B.R. 739 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 2010). “As a result, the market price of GTI’s stock could not reasonably reflect the value of GTI’s investment in OAI. (Id.) IV. Discussion A.”

Invo Florida, Inc. v. Somerset Venturer, Inc., 751 So. 2d 1263 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000). “See § 726.106(1), Fla. Stat. (1991). These elements are different than the ones required for Invo to prove a breach of contract action and are plainly independent of the contract; thus, they are not barred by the economic loss rule.”

Paragon Health Servs., Inc. v. Cent. Palm Beach Cmty. Mental Health Ctr., Inc., 859 So. 2d 1233 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). “However, we conclude that those claims concerning profit distributions/compensation raised under section 726.106(1) are not barred by the applicable statute of limitations and have not been addressed in the motions or affidavits filed.”

Friedman v. Heart Inst. of Port St. Lucie, Inc., 863 So. 2d 189 (Fla. 2003). “" § 726.106(1), Fla. Stat. (2002). To utilize the protections of chapter 726, however, a plaintiff must show that he or she has a "claim" which qualifies the party as a "creditor.”

— 726.106(2) — 21 cases

Nat'l Auto Serv. Centers, Inc. v. F/R 550, LLC, 192 So. 3d 498 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016). “106(1); and (3) transfers to an insider of the debtor for an antecedent debt when the debtor is insolvent and the insider has reasonable cause to know that, § 726.106(2). When a transfer falls into one of these categories, FUFTA affords the creditor an array of remedies against…”

Off. Comm. of Unsecured Creditors of Toy King Distributors, Inc. v. Liberty Sav. Bank, FSB (In Re Toy King Distributors, Inc.), 256 B.R. 1 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2000). “The final “badge of fraud” implicated in this case is the debtor’s insolvency, either at the time of or as a result of the transfer. This badge of fraud is another element required to prove constructive fraud pursuant to Section 548(a)(1)(B) of the Bankruptcy Code and Section…”

Remex Elec. Ltd. v. Axl Indus., Inc. (In Re Axl Indus., Inc.), 127 B.R. 482 (S.D. Fla. 1991).

— 726.106(l)(b) — 2 cases

Off. Comm. of Unsecured Creditors v. Florida (In Re Tower Env't, Inc.), 260 B.R. 213 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 1998). “For the obligation to be avoided pursuant to § 726.106, Fla.Stat., there must be a creditor with an allowable unsecured claim in this bankruptcy case which claim arose before the obligation was incurred.”

Zaki Kulaibee Establishment v. Mcflicker, 788 F. Supp. 2d 1363 (S.D. Fla. 2011). “ZKE also claims that Defendants are liable under Fla. Stat. § 726.106 (1) because Defendants transferred ZKE’s property and the proceeds of ZKE’s property, or incurred obligations at a time when ZKE already had claims against defendants.”

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.