UNIFORM VOIDABLE TRANSACTIONS ACT
Act 434 of 1998
566.31 Definitions.
Sec. 1.
As used in this act:
(a) "Affiliate" means a person that is 1 or more of the following:
(i) A person that directly or indirectly owns, controls, or holds with power to vote 20% or more of the outstanding voting securities of the debtor, other than a person that holds the securities in either of the following circumstances:
(A) As a fiduciary or agent without sole discretionary power to vote the securities.
(B) Solely to secure a debt, if the person has not in fact exercised the power to vote.
(ii) A corporation 20% or more of whose outstanding voting securities are directly or indirectly owned, controlled, or held with power to vote by the debtor or a person that directly or indirectly owns, controls, or holds, with power to vote, 20% or more of the outstanding voting securities of the debtor, other than a person that holds the securities in either of the following circumstances:
(A) As a fiduciary or agent without sole discretionary power to vote the securities.
(B) Solely to secure a debt, if the person has not in fact exercised the power to vote.
(iii) A person whose business is operated by the debtor under a lease or other agreement, or a person substantially all of whose assets are controlled by the debtor.
(iv) A person that operates the debtor's business under a lease or other agreement or controls substantially all of the debtor's assets.
(b) "Asset" means property of a debtor. Asset does not include any of the following:
(i) Property to the extent it is encumbered by a valid lien.
(ii) Property to the extent it is generally exempt under nonbankruptcy law.
(iii) An interest in property held in tenancy by the entireties to the extent it is not subject to process by a creditor that holds a claim against only 1 tenant.
(c) "Claim", except as used in "claim for relief", means a right to payment, whether or not the right is reduced to judgment, liquidated, unliquidated, fixed, contingent, matured, unmatured, disputed, undisputed, legal, equitable, secured, or unsecured.
(d) "Creditor" means a person that has a claim.
(e) "Debt" means liability on a claim.
(f) "Debtor" means a person that is liable on a claim.
(g) "Disposition" means that term as defined in section 2 of the qualified dispositions in trust act, 2016 PA 330, MCL 700.1042.
(h) "Electronic" means relating to technology having electrical, digital, magnetic, wireless, optical, electromagnetic, or similar capabilities.
(i) "Insider" includes all of the following:
(i) If the debtor is an individual, all of the following:
(A) A relative of the debtor or of a general partner of the debtor.
(B) A partnership in which the debtor is a general partner.
(C) A general partner in a partnership described in sub-subparagraph (B).
(D) A corporation of which the debtor is a director, officer, or person in control.
(ii) If the debtor is a corporation, all of the following:
(A) A director of the debtor.
(B) An officer of the debtor.
(C) A person in control of the debtor.
(D) A partnership in which the debtor is a general partner.
(E) A general partner in a partnership described in sub-subparagraph (D).
(F) A relative of a general partner, director, officer, or person in control of the debtor.
(iii) If the debtor is a partnership, all of the following:
(A) A general partner in the debtor.
(B) A relative of a general partner in, a general partner of, or a person in control of the debtor.
(C) Another partnership in which the debtor is a general partner.
(D) A general partner in a partnership described in sub-subparagraph (C).
(E) A person in control of the debtor.
(iv) An affiliate, or an insider of an affiliate as if the affiliate were the debtor.
(v) A managing agent of the debtor.
(j) "Lien" means a charge against or an interest in property to secure payment of a debt or performance of an obligation, and includes a security interest created by agreement, a judicial lien obtained by legal or equitable process or proceedings, a common-law lien, or a statutory lien.
(k) "Organization" means a person other than an individual.
(l) "Person" means an individual, estate, partnership, association, trust, business or nonprofit entity, public corporation, government or governmental subdivision, agency, or instrumentality, or any other legal or commercial entity.
(m) "Property" means anything that may be the subject of ownership.
(n) "Qualified disposition" means that term as defined in section 2 of the qualified dispositions in trust act, 2016 PA 330, MCL 700.1042.
(o) "Qualified trustee" means that term as defined in section 2 of the qualified dispositions in trust act, 2016 PA 330, MCL 700.1042.
(p) "Record" means information that is inscribed on a tangible medium or that is stored in an electronic or other medium and is retrievable in perceivable form.
(q) "Relative" means an individual related by consanguinity within the third degree as determined by the common law, a spouse, or an individual related to a spouse within the third degree as so determined, and includes an individual in an adoptive relationship within the third degree.
(r) "Sign" means to do any of the following with present intent to authenticate or adopt a record:
(i) Execute or adopt a tangible symbol.
(ii) Attach to or logically associate with the record an electronic symbol, sound, or process.
(s) "Transfer" means every mode, direct or indirect, absolute or conditional, voluntary or involuntary, of disposing of or parting with an asset or an interest in an asset. Transfer includes payment of money, release, lease, license, and creation of a lien or other encumbrance. Transfer does not include any of the following:
(i) The lapse, release, waiver, or disclaimer of a power of appointment given to a donee by a third party. As used in this subparagraph, "donee" means that term as defined in section 2 of the powers of appointment act of 1967, 1967 PA 224, MCL 556.112.
(ii) The disposing of or parting with an asset or interest in an asset held in trust to the person who created the trust if all of the following apply:
(A) The trust is an irrevocable trust for the benefit of third parties.
(B) The trust is a grantor trust with regard to the person for income tax purposes under sections 671 to 679 of the internal revenue code of 1986, 26 USC 671 to 679.
(C) The trustee has the discretionary authority to reimburse or advance trust property to the person for taxes that concern income attributable to the trust property.
(D) The disposing of or parting with the asset or interest in the asset is the exercise by the trustee of the discretionary authority described in sub-subparagraph (C).
(t) "Valid lien" means a lien that is effective against the holder of a judicial lien subsequently obtained by legal or equitable process or proceedings.
History: 1998, Act 434, Imd. Eff. Dec. 30, 1998 ;-- Am. 2009, Act 44, Eff. Apr. 1, 2010 ;-- Am. 2016, Act 331, Eff. Mar. 8, 2017 ;-- Am. 2016, Act 552, Eff. Apr. 10, 2017 ;-- Am. 2022, Act 145, Imd. Eff. July 19, 2022
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
131
cases (
35 in the last 5 years), 2001–2026 · leading case:
Estes v. Titus, 751 N.W.2d 493 (Mich. 2008).
Estes v. Titus, 751 N.W.2d 493 (Mich. 2008).
· cites it 14× “However, property owned as tenants by the entirety is not subject to process by a creditor holding a claim against only one spouse.”
Estes v. Titus, 731 N.W.2d 119 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 20× “Plaintiff argues that, to the extent the marital property settlement exceeded a fair and equitable division, it was a fraudulent transfer within the meaning of the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (UFTA), MCL 566.31 et seq. We agree and reverse. Two days into the 1990 firearm…”
Dillard v. Schlussel, 865 N.W.2d 648 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 7× “This action, brought under the Michigan Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (MUFTA), MCL 566.31 et seq., presents two legal questions.”
Helena Agri-Enter., LLC v. Great Lakes Grain, LLC, 988 F.3d 260 (6th Cir. 2021).
· cites it 3× “Mich. Comp. Laws § 566.31 (h). But the purpose of the “insider” provision is to determine whether a transfer involving a debtor is fraudulent, not to determine whether a transfer involves a debtor in the first place.”
Ryan Racing, LLC v. Gentilozzi, 231 F. Supp. 3d 269 (W.D. Mich. 2017).
· cites it 6× “Because Plaintiff was unable to recover any significant portion of the judgment from Rocketsports, Plaintiff filed this action in 2012 to collect on the judgment from Gentilozzi, RSR, and the other Defendants, Gentilozzi’s real estate entities.”
Gold v. Winget (In Re NM Holdings Co.), 407 B.R. 232 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 2009).
· cites it 4× “§ 101 (54) and Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 566.31 (i), the court stated that [u]nder either definition of “transfer”, the only “transfer” in the case at bar occurred in March, 1998.”
Green v. Ziegelman, 873 N.W.2d 794 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 3× “They also alleged that transfers of Ziegelman Architects’ property violated the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act, MCL 566.31 et seq., and the Business Corporation Act, MCL 450.”
Walters v. Leech, 761 N.W.2d 143 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 3× “Our Supreme Court recently held, however, that an action under the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (UFTA), MCL 566.31 et seq., will not reach entirety property transferred pursuant to a divorce judgment unless both spouses are debtors on the claim that is the subject of the…”
Meoli v. Huntington Nat'l Bank (In Re Teleservices Grp., Inc.), 469 B.R. 713 (Bankr. W.D. Mich. 2012).
· cites it 5× “Consequently, all transfers from that account to either Huntington directly through checks written on that account or to Huntington indirectly through wire transfers made into Cyberco’s Huntington accounts were transfers of Teleservices’ property for purposes of Section 548(a)…”
Mather Investors, LLC v. Larson, 720 N.W.2d 575 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 3× “Plaintiff sued both defendants for breach of contract for failure to pay for services rendered and fraudulent transfer under the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (UFTA), MCL 566.31 et seq. Plaintiff failed to serve Maddock before her death, and she was dismissed from the suit.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 566.31(1) — 2 cases
Estes v. Titus, 751 N.W.2d 493 (Mich. 2008).
“However, property owned as tenants by the entirety is not subject to process by a creditor holding a claim against only one spouse.”
Walters v. Leech, 761 N.W.2d 143 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008).
“Our Supreme Court recently held, however, that an action under the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (UFTA), MCL 566.31 et seq., will not reach entirety property transferred pursuant to a divorce judgment unless both spouses are debtors on the claim that is the subject of the…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 566.31(7) — 1 case
Estes v. Titus, 731 N.W.2d 119 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007).
“Plaintiff argues that, to the extent the marital property settlement exceeded a fair and equitable division, it was a fraudulent transfer within the meaning of the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (UFTA), MCL 566.31 et seq. We agree and reverse. Two days into the 1990 firearm…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 566.31(Z) — 2 cases
Dillard v. Schlussel, 865 N.W.2d 648 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014).
“This action, brought under the Michigan Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (MUFTA), MCL 566.31 et seq., presents two legal questions.”
Estes v. Titus, 731 N.W.2d 119 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007).
“Plaintiff argues that, to the extent the marital property settlement exceeded a fair and equitable division, it was a fraudulent transfer within the meaning of the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (UFTA), MCL 566.31 et seq. We agree and reverse. Two days into the 1990 firearm…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 566.31(a)(ii) — 1 case
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 566.31(a)(iii) — 1 case
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 566.31(b) — 12 cases
Estes v. Titus, 751 N.W.2d 493 (Mich. 2008).
“However, property owned as tenants by the entirety is not subject to process by a creditor holding a claim against only one spouse.”
Dillard v. Schlussel, 865 N.W.2d 648 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014).
“This action, brought under the Michigan Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (MUFTA), MCL 566.31 et seq., presents two legal questions.”
Walters v. Leech, 761 N.W.2d 143 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008).
“Our Supreme Court recently held, however, that an action under the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (UFTA), MCL 566.31 et seq., will not reach entirety property transferred pursuant to a divorce judgment unless both spouses are debtors on the claim that is the subject of the…”
Meoli v. Huntington Nat'l Bank (In Re Teleservices Grp., Inc.), 469 B.R. 713 (Bankr. W.D. Mich. 2012).
“Consequently, all transfers from that account to either Huntington directly through checks written on that account or to Huntington indirectly through wire transfers made into Cyberco’s Huntington accounts were transfers of Teleservices’ property for purposes of Section 548(a)…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 566.31(b)(i) — 2 cases
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 566.31(b)(iii) — 7 cases
Estes v. Titus, 751 N.W.2d 493 (Mich. 2008).
“However, property owned as tenants by the entirety is not subject to process by a creditor holding a claim against only one spouse.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 566.31(c) — 14 cases
Estes v. Titus, 731 N.W.2d 119 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007).
“Plaintiff argues that, to the extent the marital property settlement exceeded a fair and equitable division, it was a fraudulent transfer within the meaning of the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (UFTA), MCL 566.31 et seq. We agree and reverse. Two days into the 1990 firearm…”
Mather Investors, LLC v. Larson, 720 N.W.2d 575 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006).
“Plaintiff sued both defendants for breach of contract for failure to pay for services rendered and fraudulent transfer under the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (UFTA), MCL 566.31 et seq. Plaintiff failed to serve Maddock before her death, and she was dismissed from the suit.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 566.31(d) — 8 cases
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 566.31(e) — 3 cases
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 566.31(f) — 8 cases
Dillard v. Schlussel, 865 N.W.2d 648 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014).
“This action, brought under the Michigan Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (MUFTA), MCL 566.31 et seq., presents two legal questions.”
Mather Investors, LLC v. Larson, 720 N.W.2d 575 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006).
“Plaintiff sued both defendants for breach of contract for failure to pay for services rendered and fraudulent transfer under the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (UFTA), MCL 566.31 et seq. Plaintiff failed to serve Maddock before her death, and she was dismissed from the suit.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 566.31(g) — 5 cases
Estes v. Titus, 751 N.W.2d 493 (Mich. 2008).
“However, property owned as tenants by the entirety is not subject to process by a creditor holding a claim against only one spouse.”
Dillard v. Schlussel, 865 N.W.2d 648 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014).
“This action, brought under the Michigan Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (MUFTA), MCL 566.31 et seq., presents two legal questions.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 566.31(g)(i)(A) — 3 cases
Estes v. Titus, 731 N.W.2d 119 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007).
“Plaintiff argues that, to the extent the marital property settlement exceeded a fair and equitable division, it was a fraudulent transfer within the meaning of the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (UFTA), MCL 566.31 et seq. We agree and reverse. Two days into the 1990 firearm…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 566.31(g)(ii)(A) — 1 case
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 566.31(h) — 2 cases
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 566.31(h)(i)(A) — 1 case
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 566.31(h)(iv) — 1 case
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 566.31(i) — 1 case
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 566.31(i)(i) — 1 case
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 566.31(i)(i)(A) — 1 case
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 566.31(i)(iv) — 1 case
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 566.31(j) — 1 case
Dillard v. Schlussel, 865 N.W.2d 648 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014).
“This action, brought under the Michigan Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (MUFTA), MCL 566.31 et seq., presents two legal questions.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 566.31(k) — 3 cases
Estes v. Titus, 751 N.W.2d 493 (Mich. 2008).
“However, property owned as tenants by the entirety is not subject to process by a creditor holding a claim against only one spouse.”
Estes v. Titus, 731 N.W.2d 119 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007).
“Plaintiff argues that, to the extent the marital property settlement exceeded a fair and equitable division, it was a fraudulent transfer within the meaning of the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (UFTA), MCL 566.31 et seq. We agree and reverse. Two days into the 1990 firearm…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 566.31(l) — 4 cases
Estes v. Titus, 751 N.W.2d 493 (Mich. 2008).
“However, property owned as tenants by the entirety is not subject to process by a creditor holding a claim against only one spouse.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 566.31(m) — 1 case
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 566.31(o) — 1 case
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 566.31(q) — 2 cases
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 566.31(s) — 2 cases
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 566.31(t) — 1 case
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.