(a) A transfer made or obligation incurred by a debtor is voidable 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:
(i) 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
(ii) Intended to incur, or believed or reasonably should have believed that the debtor
would incur, debts beyond the debtor’s ability to pay as they became due.
(b) In determining actual intent under subsection (a)(1), 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.
(c) A creditor making a claim for relief under subsection (a) has the burden of proving
the elements of the claim for relief by a preponderance of the evidence.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
13
cases (
4 in the last 5 years), 1994–2025 · leading case:
Duffy v. Dwyer, 847 A.2d 266 (R.I. 2004).
Duffy v. Dwyer, 847 A.2d 266 (R.I. 2004).
· cites it 6× “Section 6-16-4(a)(1) provides that a transfer is fraudulent as to a creditor when a debtor, in this case Evans, makes a transfer “[wjith the actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud [a] creditor * * Under § 6-16-4(a)(2), a transfer also is fraudulent if the debtor does not…”
Rohm & Haas Co. v. Capuano, 301 F. Supp. 2d 156 (D.R.I. 2004).
· cites it 6× “] R.I. Gen. Laws § 6-16-4(a). The RIUF-TA also makes a transfer fraudulent if “the debtor made the transfer or incurred the obligation without receiving a reasonably equivalent value in exchange for the transfer or obligation and .”
Landmark Med. Ctr. v. Gauthier, 635 A.2d 1145 (R.I. 1994).
· cites it 2× “” General Laws 1956 (1992 Reenactment) § 6-16-4 provides in pertinent part that “(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…”
Kondracky v. Crystal Restoration, Inc., 791 A.2d 482 (R.I. 2002).
· cites it 2× “”) The plaintiffs additionally aver that the trial justice erred in denying their claim that the Marcottes engaged in a series of fraudulent conveyances to Crystal in violation of G.L.1956 § 6-16-4. We have stated previously that “[ujnder the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act,…”
Zahn v. Yucaipa Capital Fund (In Re Almac's, Inc.), 202 B.R. 648 (D.R.I. 1996).
“…IV). The Trustee alleges that the payments constitute fraudulent transfers as defined by Rhode Island General Laws §§ 6-16-4(a)(2)(A), 6-16-4(a)(2)(B), and 6-16-5(a) and should be avoided pursuant to §§ 544(b) and 550(a) of the Bankruptcy Code and Rhode Island General Laws…”
United States v. Hatch (D.R.I. 2025).
· cites it 7× “Hatch’s transfer of 21 Annandale and partial transfer of 23 Annandale are voidable under either § 6-16-4 (a)(1) or (a)(2). See Gov’t’s Mot.”
United States v. Hatch (D.R.I. 2025).
· cites it 7× “Laws § 6-16-4(a)(1). Courts consider multiple statutory factors when determining whether a debtor had the requisite intent.”
United States v. Hatch (D.R.I. 2024).
· cites it 2× “2006) (applying R.I. Gen. Laws § 6-16-4). The totality of the evidence presented by the United States is plainly suggestive of fraud.”
In re Valente, 263 B.R. 694 (Bankr. D.R.I. 2001).
· cites it 3× “§ 6-16-4(a) (emphasis added). The term “transfer” is defined as “every mode, direct or indirect, absolute or conditional, voluntary or involuntary, of disposing of or parting with an asset or an interest in an asset, and includes payment of money, release, lease, and creation of…”
United States v. Beauchamp, 611 F. Supp. 2d 194 (D.R.I. 2009).
· cites it 2× “Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 43 F.2d 509, 512 (3d Cir.”
— R.I. Gen. Laws § 6-16-4(a) — 2 cases
Rohm & Haas Co. v. Capuano, 301 F. Supp. 2d 156 (D.R.I. 2004).
“] R.I. Gen. Laws § 6-16-4(a). The RIUF-TA also makes a transfer fraudulent if “the debtor made the transfer or incurred the obligation without receiving a reasonably equivalent value in exchange for the transfer or obligation and .”
In re Valente, 263 B.R. 694 (Bankr. D.R.I. 2001).
“§ 6-16-4(a) (emphasis added). The term “transfer” is defined as “every mode, direct or indirect, absolute or conditional, voluntary or involuntary, of disposing of or parting with an asset or an interest in an asset, and includes payment of money, release, lease, and creation of…”
— R.I. Gen. Laws § 6-16-4(a)(1) — 5 cases
Duffy v. Dwyer, 847 A.2d 266 (R.I. 2004).
“Section 6-16-4(a)(1) provides that a transfer is fraudulent as to a creditor when a debtor, in this case Evans, makes a transfer “[wjith the actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud [a] creditor * * Under § 6-16-4(a)(2), a transfer also is fraudulent if the debtor does not…”
Rohm & Haas Co. v. Capuano, 301 F. Supp. 2d 156 (D.R.I. 2004).
“] R.I. Gen. Laws § 6-16-4(a). The RIUF-TA also makes a transfer fraudulent if “the debtor made the transfer or incurred the obligation without receiving a reasonably equivalent value in exchange for the transfer or obligation and .”
United States v. Hatch (D.R.I. 2025).
“Laws § 6-16-4(a)(1). Courts consider multiple statutory factors when determining whether a debtor had the requisite intent.”
United States v. Hatch (D.R.I. 2025).
“Hatch’s transfer of 21 Annandale and partial transfer of 23 Annandale are voidable under either § 6-16-4 (a)(1) or (a)(2). See Gov’t’s Mot.”
— R.I. Gen. Laws § 6-16-4(a)(2) — 2 cases
Rohm & Haas Co. v. Capuano, 301 F. Supp. 2d 156 (D.R.I. 2004).
“] R.I. Gen. Laws § 6-16-4(a). The RIUF-TA also makes a transfer fraudulent if “the debtor made the transfer or incurred the obligation without receiving a reasonably equivalent value in exchange for the transfer or obligation and .”
Duffy v. Dwyer, 847 A.2d 266 (R.I. 2004).
“Section 6-16-4(a)(1) provides that a transfer is fraudulent as to a creditor when a debtor, in this case Evans, makes a transfer “[wjith the actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud [a] creditor * * Under § 6-16-4(a)(2), a transfer also is fraudulent if the debtor does not…”
— R.I. Gen. Laws § 6-16-4(a)(2)(A) — 1 case
Zahn v. Yucaipa Capital Fund (In Re Almac's, Inc.), 202 B.R. 648 (D.R.I. 1996).
“…IV). The Trustee alleges that the payments constitute fraudulent transfers as defined by Rhode Island General Laws §§ 6-16-4(a)(2)(A), 6-16-4(a)(2)(B), and 6-16-5(a) and should be avoided pursuant to §§ 544(b) and 550(a) of the Bankruptcy Code and Rhode Island General Laws…”
— R.I. Gen. Laws § 6-16-4(a)(l) — 1 case
Duffy v. Dwyer, 847 A.2d 266 (R.I. 2004).
“Section 6-16-4(a)(1) provides that a transfer is fraudulent as to a creditor when a debtor, in this case Evans, makes a transfer “[wjith the actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud [a] creditor * * Under § 6-16-4(a)(2), a transfer also is fraudulent if the debtor does not…”
— R.I. Gen. Laws § 6-16-4(b) — 3 cases
Landmark Med. Ctr. v. Gauthier, 635 A.2d 1145 (R.I. 1994).
“” General Laws 1956 (1992 Reenactment) § 6-16-4 provides in pertinent part that “(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…”
United States v. Hatch (D.R.I. 2025).
“Hatch’s transfer of 21 Annandale and partial transfer of 23 Annandale are voidable under either § 6-16-4 (a)(1) or (a)(2). See Gov’t’s Mot.”
United States v. Hatch (D.R.I. 2025).
“Laws § 6-16-4(a)(1). Courts consider multiple statutory factors when determining whether a debtor had the requisite intent.”
— R.I. Gen. Laws § 6-16-4(c) — 2 cases
United States v. Hatch (D.R.I. 2025).
“Hatch’s transfer of 21 Annandale and partial transfer of 23 Annandale are voidable under either § 6-16-4 (a)(1) or (a)(2). See Gov’t’s Mot.”
United States v. Hatch (D.R.I. 2025).
“Laws § 6-16-4(a)(1). Courts consider multiple statutory factors when determining whether a debtor had the requisite intent.”
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.