Sections 56-10-14 through 56-10-29 NMSA 1978 may be cited as the "Uniform
Voidable Transactions Act".
History: Laws 1989, ch. 382, § 1; 2015, ch. 54, § 9.
ANNOTATIONS
The 2015 amendment, effective January 1, 2016, changed the name of the Uniform
Fraudulent Transfer Act to the Uniform Voidable Transactions Act; changed "This act" to
"Sections 56-10-14 through 56-10-29 NMSA 1978", and after "Uniform", deleted
"Fraudulent Transfer" and added "Voidable Transactions".
Federal preemption. — A motion for the appointment of a receiver for a development
corporation due to an allegedly fraudulent transfer which the corporation had made in
violation of this article was denied, since the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery,
and Enforcement Act of 1989, 12 U.S.C. § 1821, preempts the plaintiffs' count for
fraudulent conveyance and does not allow for non-monetary relief. Glenborough N.M.
Assocs. v. Resolution Trust Corp., 802 F. Supp. 387 (D.N.M. 1992).
Law reviews. — For note, "Matching the Historical Legal Principles on New Mexico's
Exemption Laws to the Modern Identity of Annuities: Dona Ana Savings & Loan Ass'n v.
Dofflemeyer," see 24 N.M.L. Rev. 365 (1994).
Notes of Decisions
Mannick v. Wakeland, 2005 NMCA 098 (N.M. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 3× “rity to consolidate the cases on appeal, (2) that the district court did not have a basis for finding that she had committed voluntary waste, (3) that the district court must have concluded that she committed prima facie tort and that the evidence did not support this…”
Mannick v. Wakeland, 117 P.3d 919 (N.M. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 3× “to consolidate the cases on appeal, (2) that the district court did not have a basis for finding that she had committed voluntary waste, (3) that the district court must have concluded that she *923 committed prima facie tort and that the evidence did not support this…”
First Sw. Fin. Servs. v. Pulliam, 912 P.2d 828 (N.M. Ct. App. 1996).
· cites it 2× “First Southwestern Financial Services (Plaintiff) appeals from an order dismissing its complaint against Harvey and Katherine Pulliam under the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act, NMSA 1978, §§ 56-10-14 to - 25 (Cum.Supp.”
Ellen Equip. Corp. v. C v. Consultants & Assocs., Inc., 183 P.3d 940 (N.M. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 2× “{1} This appeal turns on the provisions of the New Mexico Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (UFTA), NMSA 1978, §§ 56-10-14 to -25 (1989). In relevant part, Section 56-10-18 provides that a transfer made by a debtor is fraudulent as to a creditor if the debtor made the transfer (1)…”
In re Silverman, 603 B.R. 498 (Bankr. D.N.M. 2019).
· cites it 2× “NMSA § 56-10-14 et seq. Debtor's first lawyer withdrew on January 8, 2016.”
Montoya v. Tobey (In re Ewbank), 359 B.R. 807 (Bankr. D.N.M. 2007).
· cites it 2× “1978 §§ 56-10-14 to 25 (Repl.Pamp.1996); 2) to determine the validity, extent, and priority of the Defendant’s interest the Property; and 3) to sell the Property in which the Defendant has an interest under 11 U.”
Schmierer v. The Tribal Trust, 427 P.3d 143 (N.M. Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 2× “She alleged that the California Defendants had fraudulently transferred their assets in violation of the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act, n/k/a the Uniform Voidable Transactions Act (UVTA), NMSA 1978, §§ 56-10-14 to -29 (1989, as amended through 2015), and that the assets had…”
Dyer v. Eckols, 808 S.W.2d 531 (Tex. App. 1991).
“1990); N.M. Stat.Ann. §§ 56-10-14 to 56-10-25 (Supp.”
Skyline Potato Co. v. Tan-O-On Mktg., Inc., 879 F. Supp. 2d 1228 (D.N.M. 2012).
“1978, §§ 56-10-14 to -25 (“UFTA”), that Tan-O-On Marketing asserts against the Hi-Land Potato Parties to survive dismissal under rule 12(b)(6) and rule 9(b).”
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.