Maine Revised Statutes
Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 14, § 3576 (2026)
Transfers fraudulent as to present creditors
✓ laws through the 2025 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
1.
Transfers without receipt of reasonably equivalent value.
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.
[PL 1985, c. 641, §3 (NEW).]
2.
Transfer to insider.
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.
[PL 1985, c. 641, §3 (NEW).]
SECTION HISTORY
PL 1985, c. 641, §3 (NEW).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 26
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1998–2026 · leading case: Keach v. Wheeling & Lake Erie Ry. Co. (In re Montreal, Maine & Atl. Ry., Ltd.), 888 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2018).
Keach v. Wheeling & Lake Erie Ry. Co. (In re Montreal, Maine & Atl. Ry., Ltd.), 888 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2018). “It argued that the waterfall disbursements did not consist of "assets" belonging to the debtor and, in the alternative, that the Trustee had failed plausibly to allege that Wheeling was an "insider" vis-à-vis the debtor.”
Dalton v. Comm'r, 135 T.C. 393 (T.C. 2010). “According to Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 14, sec. 3576(2) : 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…”
Turner v. Phoenix Fin., LLC (In re Imageset, Inc.), 299 B.R. 709 (Bankr. D. Me. 2003). “14 M.R.S.A. § 3576(2). Such transfers are “ avoidable,” 14 M.”
Garrison City Broad., Inc. v. York Obstetrics & Gynecology, P.A., 2009 ME 124, 985 A.2d 465. “” The court further found that Garrison had initially demonstrated that the transfers met the definition of “transfer to [an] insider,” as that term is used in 14 M.R.S. § 3576(2) (2008), 4 but that York Obstetrics had established that the transfers were “in the ordinary course…”
Turner v. JPB Enter., Inc. (In re Maine Poly, Inc.), 317 B.R. 1 (Bankr. D. Me. 2004). “At this, defendants take square aim. They have proffered expert testimony that the value of the ESD assets approximated what Maine Poly received for them.”
Carneal v. Leighton, 237 F. Supp. 2d 104 (D. Me. 2002). “” 14 M.R.S.A. § 3576 Maine cmt. 1. *109 i. Count III — Defendant Frederick Leighton’s transfer of his ownership interest in the $5,000 John Hancock Mutual Fund to Defendant Ann Leighton and the transfers of the CCPA cash distributions to Defendant Ann Leighton Sometime after…”
Svenska Ortmedicinska Institutet v. DeSoto, 164 F. Supp. 2d 27 (D. Me. 2001). “§ 3575 (Count X); Fraudulent Transfer, 14 M.R.S.A. § 3576(1) (Count XI); and violation of the Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, 10 M.”
Huber v. Williams, 2005 ME 40, 869 A.2d 737. “Again, because Huber does not raise an issue regarding whether the transfer to Flick was for a reasonably equivalent value, see 14 M.R.S.A. § 3576(1), we need only consider the second type of fraudulent transfer defined in section 3576: a preferential transfer to an insider, see…”
Storer v. Jacobs, No. LINre-18-2 (Me. Super. Ct May 21, 2019). “8 Count I alleges that Dean's transfers of the Property to Sarah are both fraudulent under 14 M.R.S. § 3576(1), which provides that a transfer is fraudulent under the UFTA if the transfer is made without receiving a reasonably equivalent value in exchange for the transfer and…”
Suchar v. Comm'r, 89 T.C.M. 755 (T.C. 2005). “1(A) of MUFTA provides that a debtor's transfer will be considered fraudulent as to a present or a future creditor if the debtor made a transfer with "actual intent to hinder, delay or defraud any creditor of the debtor".”
Off. Comm. of Unsecured Creditors v. Calpers Corp. Partners, No. 1:18-cv-00068 (D. Me. July 17, 2020). “In the Second Amended Complaint, the Plaintiff seeks to add a similar claim under MUFTA, 14 M.R.S.A. §§ 3576(1) and 3578. I begin with a look at the language of the two statutes.”
Pettegrow, No. 25-01002 (Bankr. D. Me. Mar. 26, 2026). “In its motion, L207 contends that: (a) the Pettegrows were not, as a matter of law, insolvent for the purposes of the Maine Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (“MUFTA”), notwithstanding their inability to pay debts as they come due, if the value of their assets exceeded their…”
Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 14, § 3576(1): 10 cases
Carneal v. Leighton, 237 F. Supp. 2d 104 (D. Me. 2002). “” 14 M.R.S.A. § 3576 Maine cmt. 1. *109 i. Count III — Defendant Frederick Leighton’s transfer of his ownership interest in the $5,000 John Hancock Mutual Fund to Defendant Ann Leighton and the transfers of the CCPA cash distributions to Defendant Ann Leighton Sometime after…”
Svenska Ortmedicinska Institutet v. DeSoto, 164 F. Supp. 2d 27 (D. Me. 2001). “§ 3575 (Count X); Fraudulent Transfer, 14 M.R.S.A. § 3576(1) (Count XI); and violation of the Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, 10 M.”
Huber v. Williams, 2005 ME 40, 869 A.2d 737. “Again, because Huber does not raise an issue regarding whether the transfer to Flick was for a reasonably equivalent value, see 14 M.R.S.A. § 3576(1), we need only consider the second type of fraudulent transfer defined in section 3576: a preferential transfer to an insider, see…”
Off. Comm. of Unsecured Creditors v. Calpers Corp. Partners, No. 1:18-cv-00068 (D. Me. July 17, 2020). “In the Second Amended Complaint, the Plaintiff seeks to add a similar claim under MUFTA, 14 M.R.S.A. §§ 3576(1) and 3578. I begin with a look at the language of the two statutes.”
Storer v. Jacobs, No. LINre-18-2 (Me. Super. Ct May 21, 2019). “8 Count I alleges that Dean's transfers of the Property to Sarah are both fraudulent under 14 M.R.S. § 3576(1), which provides that a transfer is fraudulent under the UFTA if the transfer is made without receiving a reasonably equivalent value in exchange for the transfer and…”
Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 14, § 3576(1)(B): 1 case
Turner v. JPB Enter., Inc. (In re Maine Poly, Inc.), 317 B.R. 1 (Bankr. D. Me. 2004). “At this, defendants take square aim. They have proffered expert testimony that the value of the ESD assets approximated what Maine Poly received for them.”
Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 14, § 3576(2): 8 cases
Keach v. Wheeling & Lake Erie Ry. Co. (In re Montreal, Maine & Atl. Ry., Ltd.), 888 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2018). “It argued that the waterfall disbursements did not consist of "assets" belonging to the debtor and, in the alternative, that the Trustee had failed plausibly to allege that Wheeling was an "insider" vis-à-vis the debtor.”
Turner v. Phoenix Fin., LLC (In re Imageset, Inc.), 299 B.R. 709 (Bankr. D. Me. 2003). “14 M.R.S.A. § 3576(2). Such transfers are “ avoidable,” 14 M.”
Garrison City Broad., Inc. v. York Obstetrics & Gynecology, P.A., 2009 ME 124, 985 A.2d 465. “” The court further found that Garrison had initially demonstrated that the transfers met the definition of “transfer to [an] insider,” as that term is used in 14 M.R.S. § 3576(2) (2008), 4 but that York Obstetrics had established that the transfers were “in the ordinary course…”
Turner v. JPB Enter., Inc. (In re Maine Poly, Inc.), 317 B.R. 1 (Bankr. D. Me. 2004). “At this, defendants take square aim. They have proffered expert testimony that the value of the ESD assets approximated what Maine Poly received for them.”
Carneal v. Leighton, 237 F. Supp. 2d 104 (D. Me. 2002). “” 14 M.R.S.A. § 3576 Maine cmt. 1. *109 i. Count III — Defendant Frederick Leighton’s transfer of his ownership interest in the $5,000 John Hancock Mutual Fund to Defendant Ann Leighton and the transfers of the CCPA cash distributions to Defendant Ann Leighton Sometime after…”
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.