(A) In an action for relief arising out of a transfer or an obligation that is fraudulent under section 1336.04 or 1336.05 of the Revised Code, a creditor or a child support enforcement agency on behalf of a support creditor, subject to the limitations in section 1336.08 of the Revised Code, may obtain one of the following:
(1) Avoidance of the transfer or obligation to the extent necessary to satisfy the claim of the creditor;
(2) An attachment or garnishment against the asset transferred or other property of the transferee in accordance with Chapters 2715. and 2716. of the Revised Code;
(3) Subject to the applicable principles of equity and in accordance with the Rules of Civil Procedure, any of the following:
(a) An injunction against further disposition by the debtor or a transferee, or both, of the asset transferred or of other property;
(b) Appointment of a receiver to take charge of the asset transferred or of other property of the transferee;
(c) Any other relief that the circumstances may require.
(B) If a creditor or child support enforcement agency has obtained a judgment on a claim against the debtor, the creditor or agency, if the court so orders, may levy execution on the asset transferred or its proceeds in accordance with Chapter 2329. of the Revised Code.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 79
cases (11 in the last 5 years), 1968–2026 · leading case: In re Taubman, 160 B.R. 964 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 1993).
In re Taubman, 160 B.R. 964 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 1993). · cites it 12ד(2) O.R.C. § 1336.07 . e. Constructive Fraud .”
UBS Fin. servs., Inc. v. Lacava, 2018-Ohio-3165. · cites it 13ד19, and R.C. 1336.07. 6. After correctly ruling AIM is granted R.”
Premier Therapy, L.L.C v. Childs, 2016-Ohio-7934. · cites it 6ד” Appellants allege the buyer of the Holander House realty and business assets was a necessary party under R.C. 1336.07. This statute provides: (A) In an action for relief arising out of a transfer or an obligation that is fraudulent under section 1336.”
Slone v. Lassiter (In Re Grove-Merritt), 406 B.R. 778 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 2009). · cites it 7דTherefore, pursuant to § 550(a) and ORC § 1336.07, the Trustee is entitled to recover from the Defendant the amount of $11,070.”
Stein v. Brown, 480 N.E.2d 1121 (Ohio 1985). · cites it 4ד07 which states: “Every conveyance made and every obligation incurred with actual intent, as distinguished from intent presumed in law, to hinder, delay, or *308 defraud either present or future creditors, is fraudulent as to both present or future creditors.”
McKinley Fed. Sav. & Loan v. Pizzuro Enter., Inc., 585 N.E.2d 496 (Ohio Ct. App. 11th Dist. 1990). · cites it 6דThe trial court based its judgment in this case on Section 7 of the Uniform Fraudulent Conveyance Act, R.C. 1336.07, which provides: “Every conveyance made and every obligation incurred with actual intent, as distinguished from intent presumed in law, to hinder, delay, or…”
Aristocrat Lakewood Nursing Home v. Mayne, 729 N.E.2d 768 (Ohio Ct. App. 8th Dist. 1999). · cites it 4דR.C. 1336.07 generally describes remedies in fraudulent conveyance actions and provides: “(A) In an action for relief arising out of a transfer or an obligation that is fraudulent under section 1336.”
Toledo Trust Co. v. Poole (In Re Poole), 15 B.R. 422 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 1981). · cites it 5ד04 and § 1336.07 of the Ohio Revised Code. In order to determine whether Plaintiff has shown a strong or substantial probability of success on the merits, the proofs adduced thus far must be evaluated under the respective terms of each statutory provision.”
UBS Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Lacava, 2018-Ohio-3276, 118 N.E.3d 1008. · cites it 7דThe trial court made plain error by violating the doctrine of separation of powers, not following the statutory language in R.C. 1336.07, first in applying the limitations of R.”
Blood v. Nofzinger, 834 N.E.2d 358 (Ohio Ct. App. 6th Dist. 2005). · cites it 2דR.C. 1336.07(A)(1). 5 . {¶ a} When denying Blood’s initial, earlier motion for summary judgment in this case, the trial court wrote: *562 {If b} "If the matters alleged by Plaintiff, which the Court has summarized, are true, then the failure of the Nofzingers to disclose to the…”
Profeta v. Lombardo, 600 N.E.2d 360 (Ohio Ct. App. 11th Dist. 1991). · cites it 4דChapter 1336, entitled “Fraudulent Conveyances,” which was made effective on October 23, 1961, was repealed and replaced by a newly enacted R.C. Chapter 1336, entitled “Ohio Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act,” which became effective on September 28, 1990 during the pendency of the…”
Brown Bark II, L.P. v. Coakley, 934 N.E.2d 991 (Ohio Ct. App. 10th Dist. 2010). · cites it 5דR.C. 1336.07(A). {¶ 18} R.C. 1336.08(B)(1), in turn, provides that to the extent a transfer is voidable under section 1336.”
Brown Bark II, L.P. v. Coakley, 934 N.E.2d 991 (Ohio Ct. App. 10th Dist. 2010). “R.C. 1336.07(A). {¶ 18} R.C. 1336.08(B)(1), in turn, provides that to the extent a transfer is voidable under section 1336.”
UBS Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Lacava, 2018-Ohio-3276, 118 N.E.3d 1008. “The trial court made plain error by violating the doctrine of separation of powers, not following the statutory language in R.C. 1336.07, first in applying the limitations of R.”
Brown Bark II, L.P. v. Coakley, 934 N.E.2d 991 (Ohio Ct. App. 10th Dist. 2010). “R.C. 1336.07(A). {¶ 18} R.C. 1336.08(B)(1), in turn, provides that to the extent a transfer is voidable under section 1336.”
Blood v. Nofzinger, 834 N.E.2d 358 (Ohio Ct. App. 6th Dist. 2005). “R.C. 1336.07(A)(1). 5 . {¶ a} When denying Blood’s initial, earlier motion for summary judgment in this case, the trial court wrote: *562 {If b} "If the matters alleged by Plaintiff, which the Court has summarized, are true, then the failure of the Nofzingers to disclose to the…”
Aristocrat Lakewood Nursing Home v. Mayne, 729 N.E.2d 768 (Ohio Ct. App. 8th Dist. 1999). “R.C. 1336.07 generally describes remedies in fraudulent conveyance actions and provides: “(A) In an action for relief arising out of a transfer or an obligation that is fraudulent under section 1336.”
Premier Therapy, L.L.C v. Childs, 2016-Ohio-7934. “” Appellants allege the buyer of the Holander House realty and business assets was a necessary party under R.C. 1336.07. This statute provides: (A) In an action for relief arising out of a transfer or an obligation that is fraudulent under section 1336.”
Blood v. Nofzinger, 834 N.E.2d 358 (Ohio Ct. App. 6th Dist. 2005). “R.C. 1336.07(A)(1). 5 . {¶ a} When denying Blood’s initial, earlier motion for summary judgment in this case, the trial court wrote: *562 {If b} "If the matters alleged by Plaintiff, which the Court has summarized, are true, then the failure of the Nofzingers to disclose to the…”
Aristocrat Lakewood Nursing Home v. Mayne, 729 N.E.2d 768 (Ohio Ct. App. 8th Dist. 1999). “R.C. 1336.07 generally describes remedies in fraudulent conveyance actions and provides: “(A) In an action for relief arising out of a transfer or an obligation that is fraudulent under section 1336.”
Premier Therapy, L.L.C v. Childs, 2016-Ohio-7934. “” Appellants allege the buyer of the Holander House realty and business assets was a necessary party under R.C. 1336.07. This statute provides: (A) In an action for relief arising out of a transfer or an obligation that is fraudulent under section 1336.”
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.