Idaho Code

Idaho Code § 55-901 (2026)

Fraudulent conveyances of land.

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IClegislature.idaho.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Fraudulent conveyances of land.

Every instrument, other than a will, affecting an estate in real property, including every charge upon real property, or upon its rents or profits, made with intent to defraud prior or subsequent purchasers thereof, or encumbrancers thereon, is void as against every purchaser or encumbrancer, for value, of the same property, or the rents or profits thereof.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 11 cases, 1939–2020 · leading case: Fetty v. DL Carlson Enter., Inc. (In Re Carlson), 426 B.R. 840 (Bankr. D. Idaho 2010).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Fetty v. DL Carlson Enter., Inc. (In Re Carlson), 426 B.R. 840 (Bankr. D. Idaho 2010). · cites it 2× “Plaintiff also claimed Debtors liquidated the assets of Cottman and distributed the proceeds to themselves, and that this constituted a fraudulent transfer under Idaho Code § 55-901 et seq. Adv. Doc. No.”

Esposito v. Noyes (In Re Lake Country Investments, Ltd. Liab. Co.), 255 B.R. 588 (Bankr. D. Idaho 2000). · cites it 2× “The counts are, first, for equitable subordination under § 510; second, for avoidance of fraudulent conveyance under Idaho Code § 55-901 , et seq.; third, for avoidance of illegal corporate distribution under Idaho law; and, fourth, for a determination that Noyes' secured claim…”

Mohar v. McLelland Lumber Co., 501 P.2d 722 (Idaho 1972). · cites it 4× “As an affirmative defense, and in support of its counterclaim, the lumber company alleged that the trust deed constituted a fraudulent conveyance under I.C. §§ 55-901 et seq. 2 *41 After a court trial the claim based on the trust deed was decreed superior, and American Land…”

In Re Erkins, 253 B.R. 470 (Bankr. D. Idaho 2000). · cites it 2× “See I.C. § 55-901 et seq. Debtors point out that Creditor’s claims are adequately protected by the value of their various assets.”

Haney v. Molko, 844 P.2d 1382 (Idaho Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 2× “The Molkos challenge the district court’s judgment, asserting that Haney pled this action as a defrauded creditor under Idaho’s Unlawful Transfers statute, I.C. §§ 55-901 to -918, and therefore Haney was limited to the remedies of a creditor under that statute.”

Wilder v. Miller, 17 P.3d 883 (Idaho Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 2× “However, instead of challenging the evidence supporting these factual findings, the Millers cite to I.C. § 55-901, which refers to real property instruments “made with intent to defraud,” and argue that Cirafisi had no fraudulent intent in 1987 when the quitclaim deed was…”

Dunham v. Dunham, 910 P.2d 169 (Idaho Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 4× “Roger counters stating that the analytical framework for evaluating the district court's ruling is the Idaho Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act set out at I.C. §§ 55-901 through 55-921. He also claims that Carl mistakenly relies upon Erb for the proposition that an equitable…”

James Zazzali v. United States, 697 F. App'x 493 (9th Cir. 2017). “§ 544 (b)(1) and the derivative state law on which Zazzali relied, Idaho’s Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (“UFTA”), Idaho Code Ann. §§ 55-901 1 et seq. This memorandum addresses Zazzali’s cross-appeal from the district court’s judgment limiting his recovery.”

United States v. Fenton, 27 F. Supp. 816 (D. Idaho 1939). “55 loan out of the revenue belonging to the state which is represented by one of the State’s mortgages, securing a loan out of the general revenue of the State, Sections 55-901 and 55-903, I.C.A. There is a distinction between it and the common school fund, as the State holds…”

Est. of Collins v. Geist, 153 P.3d 1167 (Idaho 2007). · cites it 2× “4 The Appellants alleged that the transfers of property made by Kanaka Rapids to these Respondents were unlawful transfers prohibited by Idaho Code §§ 55-901 through 55-909 and that they were fraudulent transfers under the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act, Idaho Code §§ 55-910 et…”

In re: RALPH DEAN ISOM & PAULA ISOM I & S FARMS, a Gen. P'ship (9th Cir. BAP 2020). “The Isoms next argue that the bankruptcy court erred by not considering the fraudulent conveyance implications of the deed-in-lieu under the Idaho state law statutes, namely Idaho Code §§ 55-901 through 55-909. The court did not need to consider these statutes, because they…”

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.