A cause of action with respect to a fraudulent transfer or obligation pursuant to the provisions of the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act, Section 112 et seq. of this title, is extinguished unless action is brought: 1. Pursuant to the provisions of paragraph 1 of subsection A of Section 116 of this title, within four (4) years after the transfer was made or the obligation was incurred or, if later, within one (1) year after the transfer or obligation was or could reasonably have been discovered by the claimant; 2. Pursuant to the provisions of paragraph 2 of subsection A of Section 116 of this title or subsection A of Section 117 of this title, within four (4) years after the transfer was made or the obligation was incurred;
3. Pursuant to the provisions of subsection B of Section 117 of this title, within one (1) year after the transfer was made or the obligation was incurred; or 4. For the purpose of transfers made or obligations incurred prior to November 1, 1986, the statute of limitations in effect prior to November 1, 1986, shall apply to claims or causes of action based thereon, but in no event shall a claim or cause of action be brought with respect to such transfers or obligations incurred any later than November 1, 1990. Added by Laws 1986, c. 100, § 10, eff. Nov. 1, 1986. Amended by Laws 1988, c. 325, § 1, eff. Nov. 1, 1988.
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 4× “Statute of Limitations on Counts I and II Oklahoma’s statute of limitations for fraudulent transfers is set forth at Okla. Stat. tit. 24, § 121 . Claims made pursuant to the actual fraud provisions of § 116(A)(1) of the Oklahoma UFTA must be brought “within four (4) years after…”
Stillwater Nat'l Bank & Trust Co. v. Kirtley (In Re Solomon), 299 B.R. 626 (10th Cir. BAP 2003).
· cites it 2× “§ 544 (b)(1), this transfer is subject to scrutiny under Oklahoma’s Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act, Okla. Stat. tit. 24, § 112 et seq. The Oklahoma UFTA contains a four year statute of limitations.”
Finn v. All. Bank, 838 N.W.2d 585 (Minn. Ct. App. 2013).
“09 (LexisNexis 2012); Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 24, § 121 (2008); Or.”
Eskridge v. Nalls, 852 P.2d 818 (Okla. Civ. App. 1993).
“24 O.S.Supp.1988 § 121 provides: A cause of action with respect to a fraudulent transfer or obligation pursuant to the provisions of the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act, Section 112 et seq.”
Blevins v. Proprietor Prop. Trust, 884 P.2d 861 (Okla. Civ. App. 1994).
“As pertinent here, 24 O.S.1991 § 121 provides: § 121. Limitation of actions A cause of action with respect to a fraudulent transfer or obhgation pursuant to the provisions of the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act, Section 112 et seq.”
Floyd v. BP p.l.c. (N.D. Okla. 2021).
· cites it 2× “] Okla. Stat. tit. 24, § 121 . As set forth above, the Floyd Family plausibly alleges the elements of civil conspiracy to commit a fraudulent transfer against Midwestern and, further, a fraudulent transfer claim against EPEC under § 116(A)(1).”
Soule' v. Galaz (Bankr. N.D. Okla 2021).
“40 24 O.S. § 121(1) (emphasis added). 41 Wagner v.”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 24, § 121(1) — 1 case
Soule' v. Galaz (Bankr. N.D. Okla 2021).
“40 24 O.S. § 121(1) (emphasis added). 41 Wagner v.”
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.