Missouri Revised Statutes

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 428.005 (2026)

Short title

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MO-REVrevisor.mo.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

428.005. Short title. — Sections 428.005 to 428.059 may be cited as the "Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act".

--------

(L. 1992 S.B. 448)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 24 cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1996–2025 · leading case: Taylor v. Clark, 140 S.W.3d 242 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Taylor v. Clark, 140 S.W.3d 242 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 4× “(“Clark Drilling”) under Missouri’s Fraudulent Transfers Act (§§ 428.005 — 428.059, RSMo 2000) and common law in which she alleged that transfers occurred among the defendants through which Robert and Janette attempted to evade a debt Robert owed Wilda for maintenance pursuant…”

Dwyer v. Meramec Venture Assocs., L.L.C., 75 S.W.3d 291 (Mo. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 2× “See Section 428.005 et seq. RSMo 2000. Defendants rely on an Aabama case, Folmar & Associates, LLP v.”

Volk Constr. Co. v. Wilmescherr Drusch Roofing Co., 58 S.W.3d 897 (Mo. Ct. App. 2001). “054 of the UFTA provides that: “Unless displaced by the provisions of sections 428.005 to 428.059, the principles of law and equity, including the law merchant and the law relating to principal and agent, estoppel, laches, fraud, misrepresentation, duress, coercion, mistake,…”

Lillian M. Lewellen v. Universal Underweriters Ins. Co. Chad Franklin, Chad Franklin Nat'l Auto Sales North, LLC & CFS Enter., Inc., 574 S.W.3d 251 (Mo. Ct. App. 2019). “This section states: “[u]nless displaced by the 24 provisions of sections 428.005 to 428.059, the principles of law and equity, including the law merchant and the law relating to principal and agent, estoppel, laches, fraud, misrepresentation, duress, coercion, mistake,…”

8000 Maryland, LLC v. Huntleigh Fin. Servs. Inc., 292 S.W.3d 439 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009). “Plaintiff, the owner and lessor of an office building, filed a lawsuit seeking relief from its tenant, its tenant’s parent, and its tenant’s subsidiaries under the Missouri Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (MUF-TA), sections 428.005 to 428.059 RSMo (2000) 1 , claiming that its…”

Birkenmeier v. Keller Biomedical, LLC, 312 S.W.3d 380 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010). “First, he claims that the trial court erred in dismissing Count III for promissory estoppel and Count IV for violation of Missouri Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act, Sections 428.005 to 428.059 1 (“MUFTA”). Second, he claims that the trial court erred in finding that there was no…”

Fischer v. Brancato, 147 S.W.3d 794 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 2× “Creditor argues the trial court erred in holding Creditor failed to prove a fraudulent transfer by Debtor under the Missouri Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act, Section 428.005, et seq., RSMo 2000 1 (“MUFTA”).”

May v. Williams, 531 S.W.3d 576 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017). “In an action for relief against a transfer or obligation under sections 428.005 to 428.059, a creditor, subject to the limitations in section 428.”

Jesse Curtis v. Richard James & Sharon James, Defendants/Respondents., 459 S.W.3d 471 (Mo. Ct. App. 2015). “Introduction Jesse Curtis (Appellant) appeals from the circuit court’s entry of summary judgment in favor of Richard James and Sharon James (collectively Respondents) on Appellant’s petition seeking relief under the Missouri Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act, Sections 428.005 to…”

Behr v. Bird Way, Inc., 923 S.W.2d 470 (Mo. Ct. App. 1996). “020 was repealed by the General Assembly, effective August 28, 1992, and the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act, §§ 428.005 to 428.059, RSMo 1992 was enacted.”

Next Day Motor Freight, Inc. v. Hirst, 950 S.W.2d 676 (Mo. Ct. App. 1997). “We need not review the court’s determination that the transfers from Independent to Hirst to IBF were a violation of the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act, sections 428.005 et seq. RSMo 1994, as no sepa *679 rate relief was awarded for the violation found.”

Bueneman v. Zykan, 181 S.W.3d 105 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005). “049 2 provides the limitations period for a fraudulent conveyance claim: Extinguishment of claim for relief or cause of action A claim for relief or cause of action with respect to a fraudulent transfer or obligation under sections 428.005 to 428.059 is extinguished unless…”

Show all 24 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.