U.S. Code » Title 28 » Part PART VI— PARTICULAR PROCEEDINGS › Chapter CHAPTER 176— FEDERAL DEBT COLLECTION PROCEDURE › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER D— FRAUDULENT TRANSFERS INVOLVING DEBTS

28 U.S.C. § 3303

Value for transfer or obligation

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 28 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a)Transaction.—Value is given for a transfer or an obligation if, in exchange for the transfer or obligation, property is transferred or an antecedent debt is secured or satisfied, but value does not include an unperformed promise made otherwise than in the ordinary course of the promisor’s business to furnish support to the debtor or another person.(b)Reasonably Equivalent Value.—For the purposes of sections 3304 and 3307, a person gives a reasonably equivalent value if the person acquires an interest of the debtor in an asset pursuant to a regularly conducted, noncollusive foreclosure sale or execution of a power of sale for the acquisition or disposition of such interest upon default under a mortgage, deed of trust, or security agreement.(c)Present Value.—A transfer is made for present value if the exchange between the debtor and the transferee is intended by them to be contemporaneous and is in fact substantially contemporaneous.(Added Pub. L. 101–647, title XXXVI, § 3611, Nov. 29, 1990, 104 Stat. 4961.)Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date

Section effective 180 days after Nov. 29, 1990, and applicable with respect to certain actions for debts owed the United States pending in court on that effective date, see section 3631 of Pub. L. 101–647, set out as a note under section 3001 of this title.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2001–2024 · leading case: Hillen v. City of Many Trees (In re CVAH, Inc.)
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Hillen v. City of Many Trees (In re CVAH, Inc.) (2017) idb “In other words, because the Court concludes that allowing Trustee to utilize the FDCPA via § 544(b)(1) does not constitute a modification of the operation of Title 11, and therefore does not violate 28 U.S.C. § 3303 (c), these statutes are not incon- ' sistent, and the Court…”
United States v. Goforth (2006) ca6 “28 U.S.C. § 3303 (a), (b). The district court held that the payment of household expenses by Sheila Gilley in return for the monthly payments from her husband would not constitute “reasonably equivalent value” under the FDCPA.”
Sergeant v. OneWest Bank, FSB (In re Walter) (2011) ianb “28 U.S.C. § 3303 (a) and (b). The UFTA section defining “value” and “reasonably equivalent value” also includes the definition of “transfer” and provides: 1.”
United States v. Moore (2001) ctd “28 U.S.C. § 3303 . It is undisputed that the transfer of the Wellington property from Gary Moore to Jane Moore was made in consideration of ten dollars ($10.”
United States v. Steven Collins (2020) ca7 · cites it 2× “28 U.S.C. § 3303 (a). In other words, “value” is received at the time of the transfer.”
United States v. Steven Collins (2020) ca7 · cites it 2× “28 U.S.C. § 3303 (a). In other words, “value” is received at the time of the transfer.”
United States v. Jacqueline Key (2020) ca6 · cites it 2× “See 28 U.S.C. § 3303 (a). In determining whether the transferor received “reasonably equivalent value,” the “critical time is when the transfer is made.”
United States v. Key (2020) tnwd · cites it 2× “” 28 U.S.C. § 3303 (a). There is a dispute in the record about the exact value of the Property.”
Rolloffs Hawaii, LLC - Adversary Proceeding (2021) hib “§ 651C-3; 28 U.S.C. § 3303 (a). HUFTA and FDCPA do not provide a general definition of “reasonably equivalent” value.”
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. MacKinnon (2024) nywd “”); see also 28 U.S.C. § 3303 (a). Second, it is undisputed that Douglas knew at the time of the transfer that his potential personal liability for his entities’ unlawful debt collection activities “vastly exceeded [his] personal net worth.”
United States v. Forbes (2010) ctd “28 U.S.C. § 3303 (b) (emphasis added). Thus, to satisfy Section 3304(b), Gallagi must demonstrate both that Forbes received reasonably equivalent value and that Gallagi gave that value to him.”
United States v. Preston (2015) dcd “' See 28 U.S.C. § 3303 (a) (providing that “value” may be satisfaction of an antecedent debt).”
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.