A. A transfer made or obligation incurred by a debtor is fraudulent as to a creditor, whether the creditor's claim arose before or after the transfer was made or the obligation was incurred, if the debtor made the transfer or incurred the obligation: 1. With actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud any creditor of the debtor; or 2. Without receiving a reasonably equivalent value in exchange for the transfer or obligation, and the debtor: a. was engaged or was about to engage in a business or a transaction for which the remaining assets of the debtor were unreasonably small in relation to the business or transaction, or b. intended to incur, or believed or reasonably should have believed that he would incur, debts beyond his ability to pay as they became due. B. In determining actual intent pursuant to the provisions of paragraph 1 of subsection A of this section, consideration may be given, among other factors, to whether: 1. The transfer or obligation was to an insider; 2. The debtor retained possession or control of the property transferred after the transfer; 3. The transfer or obligation was disclosed or concealed; 4. Before the transfer was made or obligation was incurred, the debtor had been sued or threatened with suit; 5. The transfer was of substantially all the debtor's assets; 6. The debtor absconded; 7. The debtor removed or concealed assets; 8. The value of the consideration received by the debtor was reasonably equivalent to the value of the asset transferred or the amount of the obligation incurred; 9. The debtor was insolvent or became insolvent shortly after the transfer was made or the obligation was incurred; 10. The transfer occurred shortly before or shortly after a substantial debt was incurred; and 11. The debtor transferred the essential assets of the business to a lienor who transferred the assets to an insider of the debtor.
Added by Laws 1986, c. 100, § 5, eff. Nov. 1, 1986.
Notes of Decisions
Tronox Inc. v. Anadarko Petroleum Corp. (In Re Tronox Inc.), 429 B.R. 73 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2010).
· cites it 8× “Section 116 of the Oklahoma UFTA, Okla. Stat. tit. 24, § 116 , which is made applicable in this case through § 544(b) of the Bankruptcy Code, provides that an estate representative may avoid an intentional fraudulent conveyance if (1) “the debtor made the transfer or incurred…”
Tronox Inc. v. Kerr McGee Corp. (In re Tronox Inc.), 503 B.R. 239 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2013).
· cites it 3× “Okla. Stat. tit. 24, § 116 (B). Four of the factors are not relevant in this case: the debtor did not abscond (Factor 6); the debtor did not conceal assets (Factor 7); the transfer did not occur shortly before or shortly after a substantial debt was incurred (Factor 10); and the…”
Burrows v. Burrows, 886 P.2d 984 (Okla. 1994).
· cites it 4× “We find that, under the facts presented here, the father’s attempt to convey property subject to a homestead exemption to avoid payment of past-due support alimony and child support may be fraudulent pursuant to 24 O.S.1991 § 116. 1 FACTS In November of 1983, Edwin Burrows (the…”
Sharp v. Chase Manhattan Bank USA, N.A. (In Re Com. Fin. Servs., Inc.), 322 B.R. 440 (Bankr. N.D. Okla 2003).
· cites it 2× “Finally, NGU claims it is entitled to avoid the transfers pursuant to Sections 544(b) and 548(a)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code and 24 O.S. §§ 116 and 117(A), and recover the transfers from Chase Bank pursuant to Section 550(a)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code and/or 24 O.”
United States v. Davenport, 412 F. Supp. 2d 1201 (W.D. Okla. 2005).
· cites it 3× “A transfer can also be fraudulent if the transfer was made without receiving a reasonably equivalent value in exchange for the transfer and the debtor reasonably believed that he would incur debts beyond his ability to pay as they became due.”
Mather v. Clancy (In Re Honey Creek Ent., Inc.), 246 B.R. 671 (Bankr. E.D. Okla. 2000).
· cites it 2× “Oklahoma has adopted ■ the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (“UFTA”) which is codified at Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 24, § 116 (West 1987).”
Chandler v. Denton, 747 P.2d 938 (Okla. 1987).
“Now 24 O.S.Supp.1986, §§ 116, 119, 113. 4 . Since amended to require filing within nine months.”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 24, § 116(A) — 1 case
— Okla. Stat. tit. 24, § 116(A)(1) — 2 cases
United States v. Davenport, 412 F. Supp. 2d 1201 (W.D. Okla. 2005).
“A transfer can also be fraudulent if the transfer was made without receiving a reasonably equivalent value in exchange for the transfer and the debtor reasonably believed that he would incur debts beyond his ability to pay as they became due.”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 24, § 116(A)(2) — 1 case
— Okla. Stat. tit. 24, § 116(A)(2)(b) — 1 case
United States v. Davenport, 412 F. Supp. 2d 1201 (W.D. Okla. 2005).
“A transfer can also be fraudulent if the transfer was made without receiving a reasonably equivalent value in exchange for the transfer and the debtor reasonably believed that he would incur debts beyond his ability to pay as they became due.”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 24, § 116(B) — 1 case
United States v. Davenport, 412 F. Supp. 2d 1201 (W.D. Okla. 2005).
“A transfer can also be fraudulent if the transfer was made without receiving a reasonably equivalent value in exchange for the transfer and the debtor reasonably believed that he would incur debts beyond his ability to pay as they became due.”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 24, § 116(B)(8) — 1 case
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.