Indiana Code

Ind. Code § 32-18-2-20 (2026)

Supplementary provisions

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaInd. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Sec. 20. Unless superseded by this chapter, the principles of law and equity, including the law merchant and the law relating to principal and agent, equitable subordination, estoppel, laches, fraud, misrepresentation, duress, coercion, mistake, insolvency, or other validating or invalidating cause, supplement this chapter.

[Pre-2002 Recodification Citation: 32-2-7-20.]

As added by P.L.2-2002, SEC.3.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 5 cases, 2004–2016 · leading case: Dfs Secured Healthcare Receivables Trust v. Caregivers Great Lakes, Inc. & Marc Leestma, 384 F.3d 338 (7th Cir. 2004).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Dfs Secured Healthcare Receivables Trust v. Caregivers Great Lakes, Inc. & Marc Leestma, 384 F.3d 338 (7th Cir. 2004). · cites it 2× “Ind.Code § 32-18-2-20. Under Indiana law, tortious conduct involving “malice, fraud, gross negligence, or oppressiveness which was not the result of a mistake of fact or law, honest error or judgment, overzealousness, mere negligence, or other human failing” may be punished by…”

Weintraut v. Comm'r, 2016 T.C. Memo. 142 (Tax Ct. 2016). · cites it 4× “10 ; and (4) the Indiana Supreme Court would, and therefore we should, look to certain equitable principles in determining whether for purposes of the Indiana UFTA in substance FFI made a distribution or transfer of its property to each of the FFI stockholders in the SPR sale…”

Hoesman v. Sheffler, 886 N.E.2d 622 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 2× “” Ind.Code § 32-18-2-20. Also, cases cited since the adoption of the current Fraudulent Transfers Act make clear that the general approach to determining fraudulent intent remains substantially the same.”

Deborah Klein v. Douglas Weidner, 729 F.3d 280 (3rd Cir. 2013). “3d at 354 (citing Ind.Code § 32-18-2-20). Citing to Missouri’s equivalent of Section 5110, the Missouri Court of Appeals similarly observed that the “[t]he UFTA therefore specifically incorporates pre-existing legal and equitable principles related to the law of fraudulent…”

Georgia Receivables v. Caregivers Great Lak (7th Cir. 2004). · cites it 3× “Ind. Code § 32-18-2-20 . Finally, at least one other court has applied similar com- mon law to find the president of a corporation personally liable under another state’s version of the UFTA, despite the fact that he was not a “first transferee.”

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.