Kentucky Revised Statutes
Ky. Rev. Stat. § 378.060 (2026)
Repealed, 2016
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
KY-LRCapps.legislature.ky.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Catchline at repeal: Preferential conveyance, encumbrance or other act in contemplation of insolvency -- Effect -- Exception. History: Repealed 2015 Ky. Acts ch. 37, sec. 16, effective January 1, 2016. -- Recodified 1942 Ky. Acts ch. 208, sec. 1, effective October 1, 1942, from Ky. Stat. sec. 1910.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 19
cases, 1943–2009 · leading case: Bomanzi of Lexington, Inc. v. Tafel, 415 S.W.2d 627 (Ky. Ct. App. 1967).
Bomanzi of Lexington, Inc. v. Tafel, 415 S.W.2d 627 (Ky. Ct. App. 1967). “010; that the transfer of assets to it was a preference in violation of KRS 378.060; and that there was a Bulk Sale without compliance with the provisions of KRS 355.”
Mathison v. Haydon Bldg. Materials of Cadiz, Inc. (In Re Damron Constr. Co.), 218 B.R. 371 (Bankr. W.D. Ky. 1997). “This Court finds from the evidence before it and for the reasons set forth below, that there was no intent on behalf of the Debtor Corporation to prefer Haydon and Noel over other creditors, as required by KRS 378.060. The Court enters its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law…”
Kessler v. Tapp, 180 S.W.2d 552 (Ky. Ct. App. 1944). “Section 1910 of the Kentucky Statutes, now KRS 378.060, provides that any act done by a debtor with the design to prefer one or more creditors to the exclusion of others shall operate as an assignment of all the property of the debtor for the benefit of his creditors.”
Miller v. a & M Oil Co. (In Re Smith Mining & Material, LLC), 405 B.R. 589 (Bankr. W.D. Ky. 2009). “KRS § 378.060 provides that transfers are voidable by a creditor holding an unsecured claim made “in contemplation of insolvency with the design to prefer one or more creditors to the exclusion, in whole or in part of others.”
Pope v. Cawood, 170 S.W.2d 55 (Ky. Ct. App. 1943). “The latter section, supra, provides that all transfers referred to in the former section “declared to inure to the benefit of creditors generally shall be subject to the control of courts of equity, upon the petition of any person interested, filed within six months after the *…”
Greathouse v. Millard, 320 S.W.2d 630 (Ky. Ct. App. 1958). “This is a receivership proceeding in which it was adjudged that appellant obtained approximately $11,000 as a preference from an insolvent debtor and that said sum must be returned for the benefit of all the insolvent’s creditors as provided by KRS 378.060. Appellant for some…”
W. R. Willett Lumber Co. v. Hall, 375 S.W.2d 266 (Ky. Ct. App. 1964). “010 (fraudulent conveyances) and KRS 378.060 (preferential encumbrances). The allegations of the complaint do not follow or include the simple, direct and significant language of those statutes, and we are called on to search for plaintiffs’ causes of action.”
Frentz v. Stites & Harbison (In re ThermoView Indus., Inc.), 381 B.R. 225 (Bankr. W.D. Ky. 2008). “§ 544 (b) and KRS 378.060 and 378.070,” alleged that the Debtors made “one or more transfers of an interest of the Debtors in property in an aggregate amount not less than $39,177.”
Castlen v. Ohio Valley Nat'l Bank (In Re Wilson), 106 B.R. 125 (Bankr. W.D. Ky. 1989). “§ 378.060 is extended by § 11(e) of the Bankruptcy Act of 1898 (presently 11 U.”
Wagner v. Giles, 209 S.W.3d 489 (Ky. Ct. App. 2006). “KRS 378.060, which addresses assignments made in contemplation of insolvency with the intent of preferring one creditor over others, creates a similar want of authority, disability or incapacity.”
Wilkey v. Cmty. Methodist Hosp. (In re Edwards), 219 B.R. 970 (Bankr. W.D. Ky. 1998). “Legal Analysis The issue before the Court is whether a transfer, pursuant to KRS 378.060 and 378.070, occurred within the six months preceding the bankruptcy filing.”
In re Scott-Frederick Motor Co., 177 F. Supp. 758 (E.D. Ky. 1959). “§ 378.060 is extended by § 11, sub. e, of the Bankruptcy Act ( 11 U.”
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.