O.C.G.A.
O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 18-2-22 (2019)

[Reserved] Conveyances by debtors deemed fraudulent

✓ O.C.G.A. — 2019 edition (Public.Resource.Org Release 73)
Code text and O.C.G.A. statutory annotations on this page reflect the 2019 Official Code of Georgia Annotated (Public.Resource.Org Release 73, 2019-08-21; public domain per Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, 2020). The Syfert case-law annotations in Notes of Decisions, below, are current.
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section GA-LEGlegis.ga.gov (official) JustiaJustia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

History

Ga. L. 1865-66, p. 29, § 1; Code 1868, § 1942; Code 1873, § 1952; Code 1882, § 1952; Civil Code 1895, § 2695; Civil Code 1910, § 3224; Code 1933, § 28-201; Ga. L. 1984, p. 22, § 18; repealed by Ga. L. 2002, p. 141, § 2, effective July 1, 2002.

Annotations

Editor’s notes. Ga. L. 2002, p. 141, § 2 repealed and reserved this Code section, effective July 1, 2002. For present comparable provisions, see T. 18, C. 2, A. 4.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 99 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1983–2025 · leading case: Kesler v. Veal, 356 S.E.2d 254 (Ga. Ct. App. 1987).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Kesler v. Veal, 356 S.E.2d 254 (Ga. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 84× “Kesler, against whom a jury verdict was rendered for the setting aside of a deed, $5,000 actual damages against both and $65,000 against each in punitive damages, all for fraudulent conveyance of property under OCGA § 18-2-22. Four days after Jimmy Kesler was convicted of the…”
Kesler v. Veal, 362 S.E.2d 214 (Ga. 1987). · cites it 22× “We hold that it will support the award of damages assessed against the debtor, but under the facts in this case, it will not support an award of damages against the taking party. We affirm in part and reverse in part.”
Kipperman v. Onex Corp., 411 B.R. 805 (N.D. Ga. 2009). · cites it 10× “§ § 544, 548 and by numerous state statutes mirroring the Uniform *827 Fraudulent Conveyance Act and the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act.”
Byers v. McGuire Props., Inc., 679 S.E.2d 1 (Ga. 2009). · cites it 10× “Appellants further contend that the McGuire security deed constituted a fraudulent conveyance under subsections (2) and (3) of former OCGA § 18-2-22. That statute “was repealed on July 1, 2002, when Georgia enacted the Uniform Fraudulent Transfers Act, OCGA § 18-2-70 et seq.”
Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. United States, 654 F. Supp. 794 (N.D. Ga. 1986). · cites it 21× “Coffman’s claim to the corpus by virtue of its claim that her interest is subject to being set aside because the transactions by which she gained title were fraudulent under the terms of the Georgia fraudulent conveyance statute (O.C.G.A. § 18-2-22 (Michie 1982) (formerly Ga.”
Interfinancial Midtown, Inc. v. Choate Constr. Co., 806 S.E.2d 255 (Ga. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 22× “1991) ("creditor can obtain a personal money judgment against a transferee pursuant to OCGA § 18-2-22"). Before 2002, "Georgia's statute on fraudulent conveyances, OCGA § 18-2-22, was patterned after the English statute of 13 Elizabeth, Chapter 5 enacted by the British *798…”
Gerschick v. Pounds, 636 S.E.2d 663 (Ga. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 16× “(a) They first allege that their motion for a directed verdict should have been granted because Don Pounds was not a creditor at the time of the conveyance, as required by OCGA § 18-2-22, 8 the statute in effect at that time.”
Chepstow Ltd. v. Marshall B. Hunt, 381 F.3d 1077 (11th Cir. 2004). · cites it 6× “The complaint alleged that Hunt, with some assistance from a Georgia company of which he was CEO, transferred a large portion of his assets to his wife, children, and a friend— all of whom are also defendants in the case — in violation of Georgia’s fraudulent transfer statutes,…”
Rolleston v. Cherry, 521 S.E.2d 1 (Ga. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 14× “The Trust contends that the trial court erred in granting the Estate’s motion for summary judgment in that it misapplied OCGA § 18-2-22 and it failed to consider certain evidence.”
United States v. Reid, 127 F. Supp. 2d 1361 (S.D. Ga. 2000). · cites it 35× “Pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 18-2-22, creditors can set aside: (1) Every assignment or transfer by a debtor, insolvent at the time, of real or personal property or choses in action of any description to any person, either in trust or for the benefit of or on behalf of creditors, where…”
Bloom v. Camp, 785 S.E.2d 573 (Ga. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 8× “8 See former OCGA § 18-2-22 (The following acts by debtors, inter alia, deemed fraudulent and therefore null and void: any conveyance “made with intention to delay or defraud creditors, where such intention is known to the taking party” and any conveyance, “not for a valuable…”
Cavin v. Brown, 538 S.E.2d 802 (Ga. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 10× “The evidence sustained the court’s finding that the November 5 transfer was fraudulent under OCGA § 18-2-22 (3). Under that Code section, “[e]very voluntary deed or conveyance, not for a valuable consideration, made by a debtor who is insolvent at the time of the conveyance,” is…”
Show all 99 citing cases →
— 18-2-22(1) — 4 cases
Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. United States, 654 F. Supp. 794 (N.D. Ga. 1986). “Coffman’s claim to the corpus by virtue of its claim that her interest is subject to being set aside because the transactions by which she gained title were fraudulent under the terms of the Georgia fraudulent conveyance statute (O.C.G.A. § 18-2-22 (Michie 1982) (formerly Ga.”
United States v. Reid, 127 F. Supp. 2d 1361 (S.D. Ga. 2000). “Pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 18-2-22, creditors can set aside: (1) Every assignment or transfer by a debtor, insolvent at the time, of real or personal property or choses in action of any description to any person, either in trust or for the benefit of or on behalf of creditors, where…”
Sikes v. Norton (In re Norton), 185 B.R. 945 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 1995).
Estes v. Cranshaw (In Re N & D Props., Inc.), 54 B.R. 590 (N.D. Ga. 1985).
— 18-2-22(2) — 11 cases
Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. United States, 654 F. Supp. 794 (N.D. Ga. 1986). “Coffman’s claim to the corpus by virtue of its claim that her interest is subject to being set aside because the transactions by which she gained title were fraudulent under the terms of the Georgia fraudulent conveyance statute (O.C.G.A. § 18-2-22 (Michie 1982) (formerly Ga.”
United States v. Reid, 127 F. Supp. 2d 1361 (S.D. Ga. 2000). “Pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 18-2-22, creditors can set aside: (1) Every assignment or transfer by a debtor, insolvent at the time, of real or personal property or choses in action of any description to any person, either in trust or for the benefit of or on behalf of creditors, where…”
Nelson v. United States, 821 F. Supp. 1496 (M.D. Ga. 1993).
Mills v. Parker, 560 S.E.2d 42 (Ga. Ct. App. 2002).
Coleman v. J & B Enter., Inc. (In Re Vets. Choice Mortg.), 291 B.R. 894 (Bankr. S.D. Ga. 2003).
— 18-2-22(3) — 16 cases
Tidwell v. Galbreath (In Re Galbreath), 207 B.R. 309 (Bankr. M.D. Ga. 1997).
Kipperman v. Onex Corp., 411 B.R. 805 (N.D. Ga. 2009). “§ § 544, 548 and by numerous state statutes mirroring the Uniform *827 Fraudulent Conveyance Act and the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act.”
United States v. Reid, 127 F. Supp. 2d 1361 (S.D. Ga. 2000). “Pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 18-2-22, creditors can set aside: (1) Every assignment or transfer by a debtor, insolvent at the time, of real or personal property or choses in action of any description to any person, either in trust or for the benefit of or on behalf of creditors, where…”
United States v. Sherrill, 626 F. Supp. 2d 1267 (M.D. Ga. 2009).
Hays v. Morgan Stanley Dw Inc. (In Re Stewart Fin. Co.), 367 B.R. 909 (Bankr. M.D. Ga. 2007).
— 18-2-22(8) — 1 case
United States v. Reid, 127 F. Supp. 2d 1361 (S.D. Ga. 2000). “Pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 18-2-22, creditors can set aside: (1) Every assignment or transfer by a debtor, insolvent at the time, of real or personal property or choses in action of any description to any person, either in trust or for the benefit of or on behalf of creditors, where…”
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.