Me. Rev. Stat. » Title 14

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 14, § 3575

Transfers fraudulent as to present and future creditors

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
1.  Fraudulent transfer.  A transfer made or obligation incurred by a debtor is fraudulent as to a creditor, whether the creditor's claim arose before or after the transfer was made or the obligation was incurred, if the debtor made the transfer or incurred the obligation:  
A. With actual intent to hinder, delay or defraud any creditor of the debtor; or   [PL 1985, c. 641, §3 (NEW).]
B. Without receiving a reasonably equivalent value in exchange for the transfer or obligations and the debtor:  
(1) Was engaged or was about to engage in a business or a transaction for which the remaining assets of the debtor were unreasonably small in relation to the business or transaction; or  
(2) Intended to incur, or believed or reasonably should have believed that he would incur, debts beyond his ability to pay as the debts became due.   [PL 1985, c. 641, §3 (NEW).]
[PL 1985, c. 641, §3 (NEW).]
2.  Determination of actual intent.  In determining actual intent under subsection 1, paragraph A, consideration may be given, among other factors, to whether:  
A. The transfer or obligation was to an insider;   [PL 1985, c. 641, §3 (NEW).]
B. The debtor retained possession or control of the property transferred after the transfer;   [PL 1985, c. 641, §3 (NEW).]
C. The transfer or obligation was disclosed or concealed;   [PL 1985, c. 641, §3 (NEW).]
D. Before the transfer was made or obligation was incurred, the debtor sued or threatened with suit;   [PL 1985, c. 641, §3 (NEW).]
E. The transfer was of substantially all the debtor's assets;   [PL 1985, c. 641, §3 (NEW).]
F. The debtor absconded;   [PL 1985, c. 641, §3 (NEW).]
G. The debtor removed or concealed assets;   [PL 1985, c. 641, §3 (NEW).]
H. The value of the consideration received by the debtor was reasonably equivalent to the value of the asset transferred or the amount of the obligation incurred;   [PL 1985, c. 641, §3 (NEW).]
I. The debtor was insolvent or became insolvent shortly after the transfer was made or the obligation was incurred;   [PL 1985, c. 641, §3 (NEW).]
J. The transfer occurred shortly before or shortly after a substantial debt was incurred; and   [PL 1985, c. 641, §3 (NEW).]
K. The debtor transferred the essential assets of the business to a lienor who had transferred the assets to an insider of the debtor.   [PL 1985, c. 641, §3 (NEW).]
[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 61 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1992–2023 · leading case: Morin v. Dubois
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Morin v. Dubois (1998) me · cites it 10× “" 14 M.R.S.A. § 3575(1)(A) (Supp. 1997). Although the court failed to clearly articulate its consideration of the factors that are used to analyze the fraud issue, we are convinced that it clearly misapprehended the meaning of the evidence and that the evidence compels a finding…”
Dalton v. Comm'r (2010) tax · cites it 7× “value in exchange for the transfer or obligations and the debtor: (1) Was engaged or was about to engage in a business or a transaction for which the remaining assets of the debtor were unreasonably small in relation to the business or transaction; or (2) Intended to incur, or…”
Development Specialists, Inc. v. Kaplan (In Re Irving Tanning Co.) (2017) ca1 · cites it 4× “14 M.R.S.A. § 3575. The bankruptcy court found that DSI had failed to show actual fraud using either method.”
Turner v. JPB Enterprises, Inc. (In Re Maine Poly, Inc.) (2004) meb · cites it 6× “Turner argues that the 1998 Letter of Agreement is void under the Maine Business Corporation Act and therefore any payments made pursuant to the agreement must be returned.”
Development Specialists, Inc. ex rel. Irving/Prime Creditors' Trust v. Kaplan (In re Irving Tanning Co.) (2016) meb · cites it 5× “Although there is evidence of two of the factors listed in 14 M.R.S.A. § 3575, namely that transfers were made to insiders (the Cash Transfers and Life Insurance Proceeds were transferred to the Shareholder Defendants) and the 2007 Transaction effectuated the transfer of…”
Development Specialists, Inc. v. Kaplan (2017) med · cites it 4× “14 M.R.S.A. § 3575. Actual Fraud in November 2007 Transaction 17 The trustee asserts actual fraud in the transfers made by Prime Maine and Prime Missouri on November 20, 2007.”
Shape, Inc. v. Midwest Engineering, Inc. (In Re Shape, Inc.) (1994) meb · cites it 4× “§ 548 (a)(2) and Maine law — 14 M.R.S.A. § 3575(1)(B). This Court agrees and the transfer is avoided pursuant to Section 548 and the defendant Midwest Engineering Inc.”
Official Post Confirmation Committee of Creditors Holding Unsecured Claims v. Markheim (2005) me · cites it 3× “§ 3578(1)(A), and a transfer is fraudulent if it is made “[w]ith actual intent to hinder, delay or defraud any creditor of the debt- or,” 14 M.R.S.A. § 3575(1)(A). Factors to be considered in determining whether there is actual intent include whether the transfer was to an…”
Federal Deposit Insurance v. Proia (1995) me · cites it 2× “” 14 M.R.S.A. § 3575(1)(A). The following factors may be considered in analyzing the fraud issue: A.”
O'Donnell v. Royal Business Group, Inc. (In Re Oxford Homes, Inc.) (1995) meb · cites it 4× “14 M.R.S.A. § 3575. A successful creditor might obtain relief including avoidance of the transfer or obligation, appointment of a receiver, damages or “an injunction against further disposition by the debtor or a transferee, or both, of the asset transferred or of other…”
State of Maine v. Daniel B. Tucci Sr. (2019) me · cites it 2× “) in favor of the State on the State's complaint against the Tuccis for fraudulent transfer pursuant to 14 M.R.S. § 3575(1)(A) (2018). The Tuccis argue that the State's action is barred by 14 M.”
Samsara Memorial Trust v. Kelly, Remmel & Zimmerman Kelly, Remmel & Zimmerman v. Raisin Memorial Trust (2014) me “See 14 M.R.S. § 3575. Specifically, the court ordered that Raisin and Samsara produce records of the trusts’ assets and liabilities after October 2010; documents supporting Stone’s contention that Raisin had the ability to pay its debts after 2009; all tax returns filed by the…”
Show all 61 citing cases →
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 14, § 3575(1) — 9 cases
Garrison City Broadcasting, Inc. v. York Obstetrics & Gynecology, P.A. (2009) me
Turner v. JPB Enterprises, Inc. (In Re Maine Poly, Inc.) (2004) meb “Turner argues that the 1998 Letter of Agreement is void under the Maine Business Corporation Act and therefore any payments made pursuant to the agreement must be returned.”
OFFICIAL COMMITTEE OF UNSECURED CREDITORS v. CALPERS CORPORATE PARTNERS LLC (2020) med
Olson v. Gleichman (2020) mesuperct
Fleet Bank of Maine v. Druce (1992) med
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 14, § 3575(1)(A) — 22 cases
Morin v. Dubois (1998) me “" 14 M.R.S.A. § 3575(1)(A) (Supp. 1997). Although the court failed to clearly articulate its consideration of the factors that are used to analyze the fraud issue, we are convinced that it clearly misapprehended the meaning of the evidence and that the evidence compels a finding…”
State of Maine v. Daniel B. Tucci Sr. (2019) me “) in favor of the State on the State's complaint against the Tuccis for fraudulent transfer pursuant to 14 M.R.S. § 3575(1)(A) (2018). The Tuccis argue that the State's action is barred by 14 M.”
Development Specialists, Inc. v. Kaplan (2017) med “14 M.R.S.A. § 3575. Actual Fraud in November 2007 Transaction 17 The trustee asserts actual fraud in the transfers made by Prime Maine and Prime Missouri on November 20, 2007.”
Development Specialists, Inc. ex rel. Irving/Prime Creditors' Trust v. Kaplan (In re Irving Tanning Co.) (2016) meb “Although there is evidence of two of the factors listed in 14 M.R.S.A. § 3575, namely that transfers were made to insiders (the Cash Transfers and Life Insurance Proceeds were transferred to the Shareholder Defendants) and the 2007 Transaction effectuated the transfer of…”
Turner v. JPB Enterprises, Inc. (In Re Maine Poly, Inc.) (2004) meb “Turner argues that the 1998 Letter of Agreement is void under the Maine Business Corporation Act and therefore any payments made pursuant to the agreement must be returned.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 14, § 3575(1)(B) — 11 cases
Development Specialists, Inc. v. Kaplan (In Re Irving Tanning Co.) (2017) ca1 “14 M.R.S.A. § 3575. The bankruptcy court found that DSI had failed to show actual fraud using either method.”
Development Specialists, Inc. ex rel. Irving/Prime Creditors' Trust v. Kaplan (In re Irving Tanning Co.) (2016) meb “Although there is evidence of two of the factors listed in 14 M.R.S.A. § 3575, namely that transfers were made to insiders (the Cash Transfers and Life Insurance Proceeds were transferred to the Shareholder Defendants) and the 2007 Transaction effectuated the transfer of…”
Shape, Inc. v. Midwest Engineering, Inc. (In Re Shape, Inc.) (1994) meb “§ 548 (a)(2) and Maine law — 14 M.R.S.A. § 3575(1)(B). This Court agrees and the transfer is avoided pursuant to Section 548 and the defendant Midwest Engineering Inc.”
Turner v. JPB Enterprises, Inc. (In Re Maine Poly, Inc.) (2004) meb “Turner argues that the 1998 Letter of Agreement is void under the Maine Business Corporation Act and therefore any payments made pursuant to the agreement must be returned.”
Mitsubishi Caterpillar Forklift America, Inc. v. Superior Service Associates, Inc. (1999) med
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 14, § 3575(1)(B)(1) — 5 cases
Development Specialists, Inc. v. Kaplan (2017) med “14 M.R.S.A. § 3575. Actual Fraud in November 2007 Transaction 17 The trustee asserts actual fraud in the transfers made by Prime Maine and Prime Missouri on November 20, 2007.”
O'Donnell v. Royal Business Group, Inc. (In Re Oxford Homes, Inc.) (1995) meb “14 M.R.S.A. § 3575. A successful creditor might obtain relief including avoidance of the transfer or obligation, appointment of a receiver, damages or “an injunction against further disposition by the debtor or a transferee, or both, of the asset transferred or of other…”
OFFICIAL COMMITTEE OF UNSECURED CREDITORS v. CALPERS CORPORATE PARTNERS LLC (2020) med
SE Property Holdings v. Maclin (2013) mesuperct
McGonagle v. Palli (2014) mesuperct
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 14, § 3575(1)(B)(2) — 2 cases
Morin v. Dubois (1998) me “" 14 M.R.S.A. § 3575(1)(A) (Supp. 1997). Although the court failed to clearly articulate its consideration of the factors that are used to analyze the fraud issue, we are convinced that it clearly misapprehended the meaning of the evidence and that the evidence compels a finding…”
O'Donnell v. Royal Business Group, Inc. (In Re Oxford Homes, Inc.) (1995) meb “14 M.R.S.A. § 3575. A successful creditor might obtain relief including avoidance of the transfer or obligation, appointment of a receiver, damages or “an injunction against further disposition by the debtor or a transferee, or both, of the asset transferred or of other…”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 14, § 3575(2) — 7 cases
Turner v. JPB Enterprises, Inc. (In Re Maine Poly, Inc.) (2004) meb “Turner argues that the 1998 Letter of Agreement is void under the Maine Business Corporation Act and therefore any payments made pursuant to the agreement must be returned.”
U.S. Bank v. Manning (2018) mesuperct
Olson v. Gleichman (2020) mesuperct
Briwax International, Inc. v. Lustersheen Distributing, LLC (2017) mesuperct
Clavet v. Dean (2020) mesuperct
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 14, § 3575(2)(A) — 7 cases
Morin v. Dubois (1998) me “" 14 M.R.S.A. § 3575(1)(A) (Supp. 1997). Although the court failed to clearly articulate its consideration of the factors that are used to analyze the fraud issue, we are convinced that it clearly misapprehended the meaning of the evidence and that the evidence compels a finding…”
Development Specialists, Inc. ex rel. Irving/Prime Creditors' Trust v. Kaplan (In re Irving Tanning Co.) (2016) meb “Although there is evidence of two of the factors listed in 14 M.R.S.A. § 3575, namely that transfers were made to insiders (the Cash Transfers and Life Insurance Proceeds were transferred to the Shareholder Defendants) and the 2007 Transaction effectuated the transfer of…”
Federal Deposit Insurance v. Proia (1995) me “” 14 M.R.S.A. § 3575(1)(A). The following factors may be considered in analyzing the fraud issue: A.”
Official Post Confirmation Committee of Creditors Holding Unsecured Claims v. Markheim (2005) me “§ 3578(1)(A), and a transfer is fraudulent if it is made “[w]ith actual intent to hinder, delay or defraud any creditor of the debt- or,” 14 M.R.S.A. § 3575(1)(A). Factors to be considered in determining whether there is actual intent include whether the transfer was to an…”
Berntsen v. Berntsen (2016) mesuperct
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 14, § 3575(2)(B) — 1 case
Powell v. Charles Dhyse Trust (2019) mesuperct
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 14, § 3575(2)(F) — 1 case
Official Post Confirmation Committee of Creditors Holding Unsecured Claims v. Markheim (2005) me “§ 3578(1)(A), and a transfer is fraudulent if it is made “[w]ith actual intent to hinder, delay or defraud any creditor of the debt- or,” 14 M.R.S.A. § 3575(1)(A). Factors to be considered in determining whether there is actual intent include whether the transfer was to an…”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 14, § 3575(2)(G) — 1 case
Federal Deposit Insurance v. S. Prawer & Co. (1993) med
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 14, § 3575(2)(H) — 1 case
Development Specialists, Inc. v. Kaplan (2017) med “14 M.R.S.A. § 3575. Actual Fraud in November 2007 Transaction 17 The trustee asserts actual fraud in the transfers made by Prime Maine and Prime Missouri on November 20, 2007.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 14, § 3575(2)(I) — 1 case
BATAL-SHOLLER v. BATAL (2023) med
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 14, § 3575(l)(A) — 2 cases
WCP Maine Loan Holdings, LLC v. Norberg (2019) mesuperct
TPL Financial Services, LLC v. A.L. Doggett, Inc. (2020) mesuperct
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 14, § 3575(l)(B) — 2 cases
Levine v. Taylor (2017) mesuperct
TPL Financial Services, LLC v. A.L. Doggett, Inc. (2020) mesuperct
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.