K.S.A. » Chapter 33
Kansas Statutes Annotated

K.S.A. § 33-205 (2026)

Transfers fraudulent as to present creditors

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section KS-LEGkslegislature.org JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

33-205. Transfers fraudulent as to present creditors. (a) 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.

(b) 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: L. 1998, ch. 13, § 5; January 1, 1999.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2002–2024 · leading case: McCain Foods USA, Inc. v. Cent. Processors, Inc., 61 P.3d 68 (Kan. 2002).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
McCain Foods USA, Inc. v. Cent. Processors, Inc., 61 P.3d 68 (Kan. 2002). · cites it 9× “, (McCain) was granted partial summary judgment under K.S.A. 33-205(b) in the amount of $124,495 and permitted to assert a punitive damage *3 claim against Shore.”
McCain Foods USA Inc. v. Shore (In Re Shore), 317 B.R. 536 (10th Cir. BAP 2004). · cites it 2× “Thereafter, McCain brought suit against Shore and Central in Kansas state court containing the following two claims: 1) the transfers from Allen to Central and Central to Intrust and Shore were fraudulent under Kan. Stat. Ann. § 33-205 (b) (2000) as transfers to insiders on…”
McCain Foods USA, Inc. v. Shore (In Re Shore), 305 B.R. 559 (Bankr. D. Kan. 2004). · cites it 3× “McCain had also pled in the State Court Case a claim to avoid these transfers as fraudulent under Kan. Stat. Ann. § 33-205 (b) (2000), as transfers to insiders on account of antecedent debt while the trans-feror was insolvent and where the transferee knew or should have known of…”
United States v. Krause (In Re Krause), 386 B.R. 785 (Bankr. D. Kan. 2008). “…law fraudulent conveyance claims originally pled are KaN. Stat. Ann. § 33-101, § 33-102, § 33-103, *850 § 33-204, § 33-205 and the common law. 236 The Court will first address the plaintiffs’ common law fraudulent transfer claims regarding Quivira. At common law, the…”
Foxfield Villa Assocs. v. Robben (Kan. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 6× “33-204(a)(2) or K.S.A. 33-205(a). If the creditor's claim arose before the transfer, the creditor may use either statute.”
Digit. Ally, Inc. v. Culp McAuley, Inc. (D. Kan. 2024). · cites it 3× “§ 33-204 and § 33-205. No reasonable jury could find that Depew is the alter ego of CMI because he is not an owner of CMI and no reasonable jury could find the factors for piercing the corporate veil support treating him as CMI’s alter ego.”
Goldstein v. Niles (Bankr. D. Kan. 2023). “§ 544 and § 33-205(a) of the Kansas Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act, against Bear Leasing, Bear Investments, and The Oaks.”
— K.S.A. § 33-205(a) — 3 cases
Foxfield Villa Assocs. v. Robben (Kan. Ct. App. 2019). “33-204(a)(2) or K.S.A. 33-205(a). If the creditor's claim arose before the transfer, the creditor may use either statute.”
Digit. Ally, Inc. v. Culp McAuley, Inc. (D. Kan. 2024). “§ 33-204 and § 33-205. No reasonable jury could find that Depew is the alter ego of CMI because he is not an owner of CMI and no reasonable jury could find the factors for piercing the corporate veil support treating him as CMI’s alter ego.”
Goldstein v. Niles (Bankr. D. Kan. 2023). “§ 544 and § 33-205(a) of the Kansas Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act, against Bear Leasing, Bear Investments, and The Oaks.”
— K.S.A. § 33-205(b) — 2 cases
McCain Foods USA, Inc. v. Cent. Processors, Inc., 61 P.3d 68 (Kan. 2002). “, (McCain) was granted partial summary judgment under K.S.A. 33-205(b) in the amount of $124,495 and permitted to assert a punitive damage *3 claim against Shore.”
McCain Foods USA, Inc. v. Shore (In Re Shore), 305 B.R. 559 (Bankr. D. Kan. 2004). “McCain had also pled in the State Court Case a claim to avoid these transfers as fraudulent under Kan. Stat. Ann. § 33-205 (b) (2000), as transfers to insiders on account of antecedent debt while the trans-feror was insolvent and where the transferee knew or should have known of…”
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.