Me. Rev. Stat. » Title 14
Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 14, § 3571 (2026)

Short title

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
This chapter may be cited as the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act.   [PL 1985, c. 641, §3 (NEW).]
SECTION HISTORY
PL 1985, c. 641, §3 (NEW).
The Revisor's Office cannot provide legal advice or interpretation of Maine law to the public.
If you need legal advice, please consult a qualified attorney.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1991–2026 · leading case: Dalton v. Comm'r, 135 T.C. 393 (Tax Ct. 2010).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Dalton v. Comm'r, 135 T.C. 393 (Tax Ct. 2010). · cites it 2× “Maine law could also, under certain circumstances, set aside the transfer of lots 3 and 4 under the law of fraudulent conveyances. See Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 14, secs.”
Dev. Specialists, Inc. v. Kaplan, 574 B.R. 1 (D. Me. 2017). “15 Analysis Fraudulent Transfers Maine has adopted the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (UFTA), 14 M.R.S.A. § 3571. 16 It permits a creditor to challenge transfers where there was either actual or constructive intent to defraud.”
Fed. Deposit Ins. v. S. Prawer & Co., 829 F. Supp. 453 (D. Me. 1993). “In addition, the FDIC seeks to set aside or obtain damages under Maine’s Uniform Fraudulent Transfers Act, 14 M.R.S.A. § 3571 et seq. (Supp.1992), and the Maine Uniform Commercial Code’s Bulk Sales Act, 11 M.”
State of Maine v. Daniel B. Tucci Sr., 2019 ME 51 (Me. 2019). “[¶9] Within days of that discovery, on April 8, 2016, the State brought a complaint for fraudulent transfer pursuant to the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (UFTA), 14 M.R.S. §§ 3571 - 3582 (2018) against the Tuccis.”
Dyer v. Eckols, 808 S.W.2d 531 (Tex. App. 1991). “1990); Me.Rev.Stat.Ann. tit. 14 §§ 3571 to 3582 (Supp.”
United States Ex Rel. S. Prawer & Co. v. Verrill & Dana, 962 F. Supp. 206 (D. Me. 1997). “The relators' assertion that an alleged C & S violation of the Uniform Fraudulent Transfers Act (“UFTA”), 14 M.R.S.A. § 3571 et seq., is also the subject of their reverse false claim is unsupported.”
Sostak v. Daprato (D. Me. 2024). · cites it 2× “Plaintiff’s Civil Case In October 2023, a few days after the resolution of the Government’s case, Plaintiff initiated this civil action against Derek and the Trust for fraudulent transfer pursuant to Maine’s Uniform Transfer Act, 14 M.R.S.A. §§ 3571–3582. (Complaint, ECF No.”
Janvier v. Janvier (Me. Super. Ct 2017). · cites it 2× “and Janvier Realty, LLC alleging they violated the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (14 M.R.S §§ 3571 et seq.), converted plaintiff's property, refused to pay plaintiff rents pursuant to 33 M.”
Suchar, 2005 T.C. Memo. 23 (1970). “Under Maine's Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (MUFTA), a transferee may be liable where either actual or constructive fraud was involved in a transfer.”
Butler v. Bateman (D. Mass. 2019). “109A, §§ 5, 6, & 9; Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 14, § 3571); 3 Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 323.”
Bateman v. Commonwealth Land Title Ins. Co. (Me. Super. Ct 2021). “Seq (Massachusetts Fraudulent transfer statute) and/or 14 M.R.S.A. §3571, et. seq. (Maine Fraudulent transfer statute) .”
Devgru Fin. LLC v. Lodoka (Me. Super. Ct 2023). “Therefore, these were fraudulent transfers made in violation of Maine's Fraudulent Transfer Act, 14 M.R.S.A. § 3571, et seq. 6. Pursuant to the May 17, 2022 Order and 14 M.”
Show all 16 citing cases →
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.