(A) A transfer or an obligation is not fraudulent under division (A)(1) of section 1336.04 of the Revised Code against a person who took in good faith and for a reasonably equivalent value or against any subsequent transferee or obligee.
(B)(1) Except as otherwise provided in this section, to the extent a transfer is voidable in an action by a creditor or a child support enforcement agency under division (A)(1) of section 1336.07 of the Revised Code, the creditor or agency may recover a judgment for the value of the asset transferred, as adjusted under division (B)(2) of this section, or the amount necessary to satisfy the claim of the creditor or agency, whichever is less. The judgment may be entered against either of the following:
(a) The first transferee of the asset or the person for whose benefit the transfer was made;
(b) Any subsequent transferee other than a good faith transferee who took for value or from any subsequent transferee.
(2) If the judgment under division (B)(1) of this section is based upon the value of the asset transferred, the judgment shall be in an amount equal to the value of the asset at the time of the transfer, subject to adjustment as the equities may require.
(C) Notwithstanding the voidability of a transfer or an obligation under division (A)(1) of section 1336.07 of the Revised Code, a good faith transferee or obligee is entitled, to the extent of the value given to the debtor for the transfer or obligation, to any of the following:
(1) A lien on or a right to retain any interest in the asset transferred;
(2) Enforcement of any obligation incurred;
(3) A reduction in the amount of the liability on the judgment.
(D) A transfer is not fraudulent under division (A)(2) of section 1336.04 or section 1336.05 of the Revised Code if the transfer results from either of the following:
(1) Termination of a lease upon default by the debtor when the termination is pursuant to the lease and applicable law;
(2) Enforcement of a security interest in compliance with section sections 1309.601 to 1309.604 of the Revised Code.
(E) A transfer is not fraudulent under division (B) of section 1336.05 of the Revised Code as follows:
(1) To the extent the insider gave new value to or for the benefit of the debtor after the transfer was made, unless the new value was secured by a valid lien;
(2) If made in the ordinary course of business or financial affairs of the debtor and the insider;
(3) If made pursuant to a good faith effort to rehabilitate the debtor and the transfer secured present value given for that purpose as well as an antecedent debt of the debtor.
Slone v. Lassiter (In re Grove-Merritt), 406 B.R. 778 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 2009). · cites it 24דThe Defendant Has Failed to Establish Affirmative Defenses Under § 548(c), ORC § 1336.08, and § 550(e) While the Defendant has argued that he is entitled to the protection of the affirmative defenses of having provided value to the Debtor in exchange for or subsequent to the…”
Bates Recycling, Inc. v. Conaway, 2018-Ohio-5056, 126 N.E.3d 341. · cites it 8ד{¶ 13} R.C. 1336.08(A) provides a defense for good faith purchasers against liability for a fraudulent conveyance and reads as follows: (A) A transfer or an obligation is not fraudulent under division (A)(1) of section 1336.”
Premier Therapy, L.L.C v. Childs, 2016-Ohio-7934. · cites it 6ד08 provides in part: (B)(1) Except as otherwise provided in this section, to the extent a transfer is voidable in an action by a creditor or a child support enforcement agency under division (A)(1) of section 1336.07 of the Revised Code, the creditor or agency may recover a…”
Rieser v. Hayslip (In re Canyon Sys. Corp.), 343 B.R. 615 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 2006). · cites it 5דSee Ohio Rev.Code Ann. § 1336.08. The Trustee did not seek summary judgment as to the availability of this defense to the Defendants.”
UBS Fin. servs., Inc. v. Lacava, 2018-Ohio-3165. · cites it 8דR.C. 1336.08 {¶45} In its fourth assignment of error, AIM argues that the trial court erred in applying R.”
Commonwealth Land Title Ins. Co. v. Choice Title Agency, Inc., 2012-Ohio-2824. · cites it 10ד{¶11} A creditor does not need to prove intent on the part of the transferee to establish a claim for fraudulent conveyance, but transferees may prove defenses to the claim and assert their rights as described in R.C. 1336.08. See Ford v. Star Bank, N.A.”
Brian Bash v. Textron Fin. Corp., 834 F.3d 651 (6th Cir. 2016). “See Ohio Rev. Code § 1336.08(A) ("A transfer or obligation is not fraudulent .”
Aristocrat Lakewood Nursing Home v. Mayne, 729 N.E.2d 768 (Ohio Ct. App. 8th Dist. 1999). · cites it 3דR.C. 1336.08 specifically limits the recovery by a creditor under such circumstances and provides: “(B)(1) Except as otherwise provided in this section, to the extent a transfer is voidable in an action by a creditor under division (A)(1) of 1336.”
UBS Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Lacava, 2018-Ohio-3276, 118 N.E.3d 1008. · cites it 5ד07, first in applying the limitations of R.C. 1336.08. VI. The trial court made plain error by violating the doctrine of separation of powers, not following the statutory language that is limited to one (1) of the remedies listed in (A)(1) in R.”
Individual Bus. Servs. v. Carmack, 2013-Ohio-4819. · cites it 5ד{¶ 42} R.C. 1336.08 (B) provides guidance regarding the compensation due a creditor harmed by a fraudulent transfer.”
Bates Recycling, Inc. v. Conaway, 2018-Ohio-5056, 126 N.E.3d 341. “{¶ 13} R.C. 1336.08(A) provides a defense for good faith purchasers against liability for a fraudulent conveyance and reads as follows: (A) A transfer or an obligation is not fraudulent under division (A)(1) of section 1336.”
Slone v. Lassiter (In re Grove-Merritt), 406 B.R. 778 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 2009). “The Defendant Has Failed to Establish Affirmative Defenses Under § 548(c), ORC § 1336.08, and § 550(e) While the Defendant has argued that he is entitled to the protection of the affirmative defenses of having provided value to the Debtor in exchange for or subsequent to the…”
Brian Bash v. Textron Fin. Corp., 834 F.3d 651 (6th Cir. 2016). “See Ohio Rev. Code § 1336.08(A) ("A transfer or obligation is not fraudulent .”
Premier Therapy, L.L.C v. Childs, 2016-Ohio-7934. “08 provides in part: (B)(1) Except as otherwise provided in this section, to the extent a transfer is voidable in an action by a creditor or a child support enforcement agency under division (A)(1) of section 1336.07 of the Revised Code, the creditor or agency may recover a…”
Premier Therapy, L.L.C v. Childs, 2016-Ohio-7934. “08 provides in part: (B)(1) Except as otherwise provided in this section, to the extent a transfer is voidable in an action by a creditor or a child support enforcement agency under division (A)(1) of section 1336.07 of the Revised Code, the creditor or agency may recover a…”
UBS Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Lacava, 2018-Ohio-3276, 118 N.E.3d 1008. “07, first in applying the limitations of R.C. 1336.08. VI. The trial court made plain error by violating the doctrine of separation of powers, not following the statutory language that is limited to one (1) of the remedies listed in (A)(1) in R.”
Commonwealth Land Title Ins. Co. v. Choice Title Agency, Inc., 2012-Ohio-2824. “{¶11} A creditor does not need to prove intent on the part of the transferee to establish a claim for fraudulent conveyance, but transferees may prove defenses to the claim and assert their rights as described in R.C. 1336.08. See Ford v. Star Bank, N.A.”
Ohio Rev. Code § 1336.08(B)(1): 6 cases
UBS Fin. servs., Inc. v. Lacava, 2018-Ohio-3165. “R.C. 1336.08 {¶45} In its fourth assignment of error, AIM argues that the trial court erred in applying R.”
Comer v. Calim, 716 N.E.2d 245 (Ohio Ct. App. 1st Dist. 1998).
UBS Fin. servs., Inc. v. Lacava, 2018-Ohio-3165. “R.C. 1336.08 {¶45} In its fourth assignment of error, AIM argues that the trial court erred in applying R.”
UBS Fin. servs., Inc. v. Lacava, 2018-Ohio-3165. “R.C. 1336.08 {¶45} In its fourth assignment of error, AIM argues that the trial court erred in applying R.”
Ohio Rev. Code § 1336.08(B)(2): 1 case
Individual Bus. Servs. v. Carmack, 2013-Ohio-4819. “{¶ 42} R.C. 1336.08 (B) provides guidance regarding the compensation due a creditor harmed by a fraudulent transfer.”
Comer v. Calim, 716 N.E.2d 245 (Ohio Ct. App. 1st Dist. 1998).
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.