A claim for relief with respect to a transfer or an obligation that is fraudulent under section 1336.04 or 1336.05 of the Revised Code is extinguished unless an action is brought in accordance with one of the following:
(A) If the transfer or obligation is fraudulent under division (A)(1) of section 1336.04 of the Revised Code, within four years after the transfer was made or the obligation was incurred or, if later, within one year after the transfer or obligation was or reasonably could have been discovered by the claimant;
(B) If the transfer or obligation is fraudulent under division (A)(2) of section 1336.04 or division (A) of section 1336.05 of the Revised Code, within four years after the transfer was made or the obligation was incurred;
(C) If the transfer or obligation is fraudulent under division (B) of section 1336.05 of the Revised Code, within one year after the transfer was made or the obligation was incurred.
UBS Fin. servs., Inc. v. Lacava, 2018-Ohio-3165. · cites it 19דAIM argued that any and all claims that UBS asserted against AIM were barred by the statute of limitations set forth in R.C. 1336.09, governing claims for fraudulent transfer.”
James v. McCoy, 56 F. Supp. 2d 919 (S.D. Ohio 1998). · cites it 19דSee Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 1336.09 (B). For a violation of § 1336.”
Bradley v. Miller, 96 F. Supp. 3d 753 (S.D. Ohio 2015). · cites it 8ד” Ohio Rev.Code § 1336.09(A). 12 It is undisputed that Plaintiffs’ UFTA claims, which were first asserted on May 17, 2012, were brought more than four years after the transfer of Midwest.”
Helman v. Epl Prolong, Inc., 743 N.E.2d 484 (Ohio Ct. App. 7th Dist. 2000). · cites it 3דThe parties do not dispute that count two is governed by the statute of limitations prescribed in R.C. 1336.09: “A claim for relief with respect to a transfer or an obligation that is fraudulent under section 1336.”
In Re Cincinnati Gear Co., 304 B.R. 784 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 2003). · cites it 6ד04 and there would be a four year limitations period pursuant to Ohio Rev. Code § 1336.09(A) & (B).”
Brian Bash v. Textron Fin. Corp., 834 F.3d 651 (6th Cir. 2016). “Ohio Rev. Code § 1336.09(A). In the case of a constructive fraudulent transfer claim, the Ohio UFTA provides that the claim must be brought “within four years after the transfer was made or the obligation was incurred.”
Rieser v. Hayslip (In Re Canyon Sys. Corp.), 343 B.R. 615 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 2006). · cites it 2דThe Code allows avoidance of only those fraudulent transfers made within one year prior to the Petition Date. See 11 U.”
Premier Therapy, L.L.C v. Childs, 2016-Ohio-7934. · cites it 2דCompare R.C. 1336.09(A) (statute of limitations for a claim under division (A)(1) of R.”
Profeta v. Lombardo, 600 N.E.2d 360 (Ohio Ct. App. 11th Dist. 1991). · cites it 4דThe trial court concluded that Arko Auto Sales was an *624 innocent purchaser of the 1969 Pontiac GTO and, thus, its title to the GTO could not be voided under R.C. 1336.09. However, in lieu of voiding the title and based on the misrepresentation made by appellants to the…”
Slone v. Lassiter (In Re Grove-Merritt), 406 B.R. 778 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 2009). · cites it 2ד§ 548 (a)(1) and ORC § 1336.09(A) and (B). C.The Trustee’s Claim Under Code § 548(a)(1) Pertaining to the April Transfer Is Time-Barred The April Transfer occurred outside the permissible two year reach-back period for fraudulent transfer claims provided by § 548(a)(1).”
Guernsey Cty. Cmty. Dev. Corp. v. Speedy, 2023-Ohio-1796, 216 N.E.3d 18. · cites it 3ד{¶31} R.C. 1336.09 provides that a claim for relief is extinguished unless an action is brought within four years after the transfer was made if utilizing R.”
Bradley v. Miller, 96 F. Supp. 3d 753 (S.D. Ohio 2015). “” Ohio Rev.Code § 1336.09(A). 12 It is undisputed that Plaintiffs’ UFTA claims, which were first asserted on May 17, 2012, were brought more than four years after the transfer of Midwest.”
Brian Bash v. Textron Fin. Corp., 834 F.3d 651 (6th Cir. 2016). “Ohio Rev. Code § 1336.09(A). In the case of a constructive fraudulent transfer claim, the Ohio UFTA provides that the claim must be brought “within four years after the transfer was made or the obligation was incurred.”
Rieser v. Hayslip (In Re Canyon Sys. Corp.), 343 B.R. 615 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 2006). “The Code allows avoidance of only those fraudulent transfers made within one year prior to the Petition Date. See 11 U.”
Helman v. Epl Prolong, Inc., 743 N.E.2d 484 (Ohio Ct. App. 7th Dist. 2000). “The parties do not dispute that count two is governed by the statute of limitations prescribed in R.C. 1336.09: “A claim for relief with respect to 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). “§ 548 (a)(1) and ORC § 1336.09(A) and (B). C.The Trustee’s Claim Under Code § 548(a)(1) Pertaining to the April Transfer Is Time-Barred The April Transfer occurred outside the permissible two year reach-back period for fraudulent transfer claims provided by § 548(a)(1).”
James v. McCoy, 56 F. Supp. 2d 919 (S.D. Ohio 1998). “See Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 1336.09 (B). For a violation of § 1336.”
In Re Cincinnati Gear Co., 304 B.R. 784 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 2003). “04 and there would be a four year limitations period pursuant to Ohio Rev. Code § 1336.09(A) & (B).”
Premier Therapy, L.L.C v. Childs, 2016-Ohio-7934. “Compare R.C. 1336.09(A) (statute of limitations for a claim under division (A)(1) of R.”
In Re Cincinnati Gear Co., 304 B.R. 784 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 2003). “04 and there would be a four year limitations period pursuant to Ohio Rev. Code § 1336.09(A) & (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.