Florida Statutes

Fla. Stat. § 726.109 (2025)

Defenses, liability, and protection of transferee.

✓ 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

726.109 Defenses, liability, and protection of transferee.—

(1) A transfer or obligation is not voidable under s. 726.105(1)(a) against a person who took in good faith and for a reasonably equivalent value or against any subsequent transferee or obligee.

(2) Except as otherwise provided in this section, to the extent a transfer is voidable in an action by a creditor under s. 726.108(1)(a), the creditor may recover judgment for the value of the asset transferred, as adjusted under subsection (3), or the amount necessary to satisfy the creditor’s claim, whichever is less. The judgment may be entered against:

(a) The first transferee of the asset or the person for whose benefit the transfer was made; or

(b) Any subsequent transferee other than a good faith transferee who took for value or from any subsequent transferee.

(3) If the judgment under subsection (2) is based upon the value of the asset transferred, the judgment must be for an amount equal to the value of the asset at the time of the transfer, subject to adjustment as the equities may require.

(4) Notwithstanding voidability of a transfer or an obligation under ss. 726.101-726.112, a good faith transferee or obligee is entitled, to the extent of the value given the debtor for the transfer or obligation, to:

(a) A lien on or a right to retain any interest in the asset transferred;

(b) Enforcement of any obligation incurred; or

(5) A transfer is not voidable under s. 726.105(1)(b) or s. 726.106 if the transfer results from:

(a) Termination of a lease upon default by the debtor when the termination is pursuant to the lease and applicable law; or

(b) Enforcement of a security interest in compliance with Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code.

(6) A transfer is not voidable under s. 726.106(2):

(a) To the extent the insider gave new value to or for the benefit of the debtor after the transfer was made unless the new value was secured by a valid lien;

(b) If made in the ordinary course of business or financial affairs of the debtor and the insider; or

(c) If made pursuant to a good faith effort to rehabilitate the debtor and the transfer secured present value given for that purpose as well as an antecedent debt of the debtor.

(7)(a) The transfer of a charitable contribution that is received in good faith by a qualified religious or charitable entity or organization is not a fraudulent transfer under s. 726.105(1)(b).

(b) However, a charitable contribution from a natural person is a fraudulent transfer if the transfer was received on, or within 2 years before, the earlier of the date of commencement of an action under this chapter, the filing of a petition under the federal Bankruptcy Code, or the commencement of insolvency proceedings by or against the debtor under any state or federal law, including the filing of an assignment for the benefit of creditors or the appointment of a receiver, unless:

1. The transfer was consistent with the practices of the debtor in making the charitable contribution; or

2. The transfer was received in good faith and the amount of the charitable contribution did not exceed 15 percent of the gross annual income of the debtor for the year in which the transfer of the charitable contribution was made.

History.—s. 9, ch. 87-79; s. 2, ch. 2013-189.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 72 cases (11 in the last 5 years), 1989–2025 · leading case: Bakst v. Wetzel, 518 F.3d 874 (11th Cir. 2008).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Bakst v. Wetzel, 518 F.3d 874 (11th Cir. 2008). · cites it 6× “§ 550 (d) nor Fla. Stat. § 726.109 (3) provide for the adjustment of the amount of recovery based on pre-petition repayments to the Debtors or the Debtors’ creditors where there has been a finding of actual fraud.”

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 6× “109 may obtain: (a) Avoidance of the transfer or obligation to the extent necessary to satisfy the creditor’s claim; In addition, Section 726.109, Florida Statutes, provides, in pertinent part, that: (2) Except as otherwise provided in this section, to the extent a transfer is…”

Langdale Capital Assets, Inc. v. Woodard (In re Berkman), 517 B.R. 288 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2014). · cites it 12× “As explained below, the Court’s ruling is based, in part, upon the good faith defense to fraudulent transfer actions provided for by Fla. Stat. § 726.109 (1). While an inquiry into a party’s good faith is ordinarily an issue of fact that would not be ripe for determination on…”

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× “Defendants therefore have established that they are “good faith transferees” and “good faith obligees” within the meaning of Fla. Stat. § 726.109 (4)(c). C. The Onkyo Defendants’ proofs of claim Under 11 U.”

Nat'l Auto Serv. Centers, Inc. v. F/R 550, LLC, 192 So. 3d 498 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016). · cites it 2× “§ 726.109. Section 726.110 provides fixed times in which claims based on these three categories of fraudulent transfers must be brought or are lost.”

Cuthill v. Greenmark, LLC (In Re World Vision Ent., Inc.), 275 B.R. 641 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2002). · cites it 2× “They assert that, even if transfers are deemed fraudulent conveyances, the transfers are not avoidable under Section 548(c) of the Bankruptcy Code and Florida Statute Section 726.109(1) because the defendants gave reasonably equivalent value and acted in good faith.”

Wiand v. Waxenberg, 611 F. Supp. 2d 1299 (M.D. Fla. 2009). · cites it 3× “” Fla. Stat. § 726.109 (1). Mrs. Waxenberg has moved for summary judgment on two issues: (1) whether she took the transfers in “good faith” for the purposes of the good faith defense to the claims under § 726.”

Gary McCalla & Dianne McCalla v. E. C. Kenyon Constr. Co., etc., 183 So. 3d 1192 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016). · cites it 4× “Section 726.109(2), Florida Statutes, provides that “to the extent a transfer is voidable in an action by a creditor under s.”

Soifer v. Bozarth (In re Lydia Cladek, Inc.), 494 B.R. 555 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2013). · cites it 10× “§ 548 (c) and Fla. Stat. § 726.109 (1) provide transferees with a defense to fraudulent transfer actions based on actual fraud, if the transferees gave value in exchange for the transfers and acted in good faith.”

Welch v. Regions Bank (In re Mongelluzzi), 587 B.R. 392 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2018). · cites it 4× “PLAINTIFF'S MOTION AS TO REGIONS' NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE-GOOD FAITH In its Ninth Affirmative Defense, Regions contends that even if the Court finds *411 the Subject Transfers to be constructively fraudulent under § 726.109(1), they are not subject to avoidance because Regions…”

Veigle v. United States, 888 F. Supp. 1134 (M.D. Fla. 1995). · cites it 14× “Transferees of conveyances which are found to be fraudulent may nonetheless establish the priority of their interests by successfully raising any defense enumerated in Fla.Stat.Ann. § 726.109. Thus Mead’s transfer of Parcels 1, 2, and 3 to the Hysells is voidable by the United…”

Wiand v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 938 F. Supp. 2d 1238 (M.D. Fla. 2013). · cites it 2× “Finally, Wachovia argues that the affirmative defense to fraudulent transfer liability found at § 726.109(1), Florida Statutes, requires dismissal.”

Show all 72 citing cases →

— 726.109(1) — 25 cases

Cuthill v. Greenmark, LLC (In Re World Vision Ent., Inc.), 275 B.R. 641 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2002). “They assert that, even if transfers are deemed fraudulent conveyances, the transfers are not avoidable under Section 548(c) of the Bankruptcy Code and Florida Statute Section 726.109(1) because the defendants gave reasonably equivalent value and acted in good faith.”

Welch v. Regions Bank (In re Mongelluzzi), 587 B.R. 392 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2018). “PLAINTIFF'S MOTION AS TO REGIONS' NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE-GOOD FAITH In its Ninth Affirmative Defense, Regions contends that even if the Court finds *411 the Subject Transfers to be constructively fraudulent under § 726.109(1), they are not subject to avoidance because Regions…”

Wiand v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 938 F. Supp. 2d 1238 (M.D. Fla. 2013). “Finally, Wachovia argues that the affirmative defense to fraudulent transfer liability found at § 726.109(1), Florida Statutes, requires dismissal.”

Cuthill v. Kime (In Re Evergreen Sec., Ltd.), 319 B.R. 245 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2003).

Baxst v. Levenson (In Re Goldberg), 229 B.R. 877 (Bankr. S.D. Florida 1998).

— 726.109(1)(a) — 1 case

Desmarais v. Jhelum Enter., LLC (In Re Desmarais), 518 F. App'x 671 (11th Cir. 2013).

— 726.109(2) — 13 cases

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). “109 may obtain: (a) Avoidance of the transfer or obligation to the extent necessary to satisfy the creditor’s claim; In addition, Section 726.109, Florida Statutes, provides, in pertinent part, that: (2) Except as otherwise provided in this section, to the extent a transfer is…”

Gary McCalla & Dianne McCalla v. E. C. Kenyon Constr. Co., etc., 183 So. 3d 1192 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016). “Section 726.109(2), Florida Statutes, provides that “to the extent a transfer is voidable in an action by a creditor under s.”

Paragon Health Servs., Inc. v. Cent. Palm Beach Cmty. Mental Health Ctr., Inc., 859 So. 2d 1233 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003).

Desak v. Vanlandingham, 98 So. 3d 710 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012).

Stavrou v. Destination Boat Clubs, Inc., 226 So. 3d 293 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017).

— 726.109(2)(a) — 5 cases

Perlman v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 830 F. Supp. 2d 1308 (S.D. Fla. 2011).

Cameron v. Lifsey (In re Carpets, Inc.), 522 B.R. 718 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2014).

Myers v. Brook, 708 So. 2d 607 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998).

— 726.109(2)(b) — 1 case

Dzikowski v. Delson (In Re Delson), 247 B.R. 873 (Bankr. S.D. Florida 2000).

— 726.109(3) — 1 case

Myers v. Brook, 708 So. 2d 607 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998).

— 726.109(4) — 2 cases

Global Technovations, Inc. v. Onkyo U.S.A. Corp. (In Re Global Technovations, Inc.), 431 B.R. 739 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 2010). “Defendants therefore have established that they are “good faith transferees” and “good faith obligees” within the meaning of Fla. Stat. § 726.109 (4)(c). C. The Onkyo Defendants’ proofs of claim Under 11 U.”

Stettin v. Dan Marino Found., Inc. (In re Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler, P.A.), 483 B.R. 15 (Bankr. S.D. Florida 2012).

— 726.109(4)(c) — 2 cases

Onkyo Eur. Elec. GMBH v. Global Technovations Inc. (In Re Global Technovations Inc.), 694 F.3d 705 (6th Cir. 2012).

— 726.109(6)(a) — 1 case

Nat'l Mar. Servs., Inc. v. Straub, 979 F. Supp. 2d 1322 (S.D. Fla. 2013).

— 726.109(6)(b) — 1 case

Yeager v. Summit Grp. of Cent. Florida, Inc., 654 So. 2d 189 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995).

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.