Missouri Revised Statutes
Mo. Rev. Stat. § 428.029 (2026)
Transfers fraudulent as to present creditors
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
MO-REVrevisor.mo.gov
Justiaon Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
428.029. Transfers fraudulent as to present creditors. — 1. 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.
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 had reasonable cause to believe that the debtor was insolvent.
--------
(L. 1992 S.B. 448)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1994–2024 · leading case: Taylor v. Clark, 140 S.W.3d 242 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004).
Taylor v. Clark, 140 S.W.3d 242 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004). “Further, under this reason, Wilda notes that it was unnecessary to prove actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud, as it was not a required element to show transfers are fraudulent as to a present creditor, under § 428.029, RSMo 2000. Second, Wilda contends that, contrary to…”
State Ex Rel. Missouri High. & Transp. Comm'n v. Overall, 53 S.W.3d 222 (Mo. Ct. App. 2001). “” Section 428.029(1) further states in pertinent part that: 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…”
Volk Constr. Co. v. Wilmescherr Drusch Roofing Co., 58 S.W.3d 897 (Mo. Ct. App. 2001). “In their first point, Appellants argue that the trial court granted judgment under Section 428.029 of the UFTA and that Respondent’s claims were thereby extinguished because they were not brought within one year of the allegedly fraudulent transactions.”
Kevin M. Higgins & Sue E. Higgins v. Abigail J. Ferrari & Emmitt F. Smith, 474 S.W.3d 630 (Mo. Ct. App. 2015). “044(1), á transferee may defeat a fraudulent conveyance claim brought under section 428.029(1) by demonstrating that he took in good faith and.”
Pearson v. AVO Gen. Servs., LLC, 520 S.W.3d 496 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017). “The trial court found that the transfer was- not fraudulent under section 428.029 because Pearson failed to prove AVO became insolvent as a result of the transfer.”
Bueneman v. Zykan, 181 S.W.3d 105 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005). “024 or subsection 1 of section 428.029, within four years after the transfer was made or the obligation was incurred; or (3) Under subsection 2 of section 428.”
Fleming Companies, Inc. v. Rich, 978 F. Supp. 1281 (E.D. Mo. 1997). “creditors whose claims were in existence at the time the transfer was made or the obligation was incurred, or creditors whose claims arose after that point; and § 428.029 R.S.Mo. is available only to creditors whose claims were in existence at the time of the transfer or…”
Feinberg v. Feinberg, 924 S.W.2d 328 (Mo. Ct. App. 1996). “The third point alleges: (a) the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction by setting aside Dan’s transfer of his partnership interests even though this remedy was not pleaded or prayed for; (b) the trial court erroneously determined these transfers were fraudulent because the issue…”
SSM Health Care Sys. v. Bartel, 914 S.W.2d 8 (Mo. Ct. App. 1995). “024 and § 428.029, RSMo 1994, of the Missouri Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act.”
Barnes v. Heckman (In Re Material Eng'g Assoc. Ltd.), 168 B.R. 204 (Bankr. W.D. Mo. 1994). “§ 428.029 (1992). The Trustee seeks to avoid the transfers using his 11 U.”
Fink v. Wright (Bankr. W.D. Mo. 2019). “Mo. Rev. Stat. § 428.029 . First, a transfer is constructively fraudulent if the debtor made it “without receiving a reasonably equivalent value in exchange for the transfer or obligation” and if the debtor was or became insolvent as a result of the transfer.”
Jenette Konopasek v. Douglas & Laura Konopasek, Defendants-respondents (Mo. Ct. App. 2022). “Her second point claims the circuit court erred in dismissing the amended petition because she stated a claim under section 428.029 of MUFTA – transfers fraudulent as to present creditors.”
— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 428.029(1) — 2 cases
State Ex Rel. Missouri High. & Transp. Comm'n v. Overall, 53 S.W.3d 222 (Mo. Ct. App. 2001). “” Section 428.029(1) further states in pertinent part that: 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…”
Kevin M. Higgins & Sue E. Higgins v. Abigail J. Ferrari & Emmitt F. Smith, 474 S.W.3d 630 (Mo. Ct. App. 2015). “044(1), á transferee may defeat a fraudulent conveyance claim brought under section 428.029(1) by demonstrating that he took in good faith and.”
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.