Utah Code
Utah Code § 25-6-203 (2026)
Transfer or obligation voidable -- Present creditor -- Burden of proof
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
UT-LEGle.utah.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
A transfer made or obligation incurred by a debtor is voidable as to a creditor whose claim arose before the transfer was made or the obligation was incurred if:
the debtor made the transfer or incurred the obligation without receiving a reasonably equivalent value in exchange for the transfer or obligation; and
the debtor was insolvent at the time or became insolvent as a result of the transfer or obligation.
A transfer made by a debtor is voidable as to a creditor whose claim arose before the transfer was made if the transfer was made to an insider for an antecedent debt, the debtor was insolvent at the time, and the insider had reasonable cause to believe that the debtor was insolvent.
Subject to Subsection 25-6-103(2), a creditor making a claim for relief under Subsection (1) or (2) has the burden of proving the elements of the claim for relief by a preponderance of the evidence.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11
cases (11 in the last 5 years), 2021–2026 · leading case: LuMee LLC v. Fernandez (Bankr. D. Utah 2025).
LuMee LLC v. Fernandez (Bankr. D. Utah 2025). “the POT Transfers were not avoidable under Utah Code Ann. § 25-6-203 (2) because the [T]ransfers were made to an insider but not for an antecedent debt .”
LuMee LLC v. Fernandez (Bankr. D. Utah 2023). “§ 25:2-27 (2) and Utah Code Ann. § 25-6-203 (2); (7) recovery remedies available to the Plaintiff under N.”
Chaturvedi v. Orbcomm Inc. (D. Utah 2023). “Follmer left inthinc insolvent amounts to a “formulaic recitation” of one of the two elements of a fraudulent transfer claim under Utah Code § 25-6-203(1). See id. § 25-6-203(1)(b).”
White v. Wardley (10th Cir. 2025). “§§ 544 , 550; Utah Code Ann. § 25-6-203 (West 2025). He alleged, and sought to avoid, a constructively fraudulent obligation and transfer made by White to Wardley in connection with their failed venture.”
Moglia (D. Utah 2026). “” Utah Code Ann. § 25-6-203 (1). The Receiver alleges that despite apparent insolvency, Israelsen used the QIR funds to send money to Izzra.”
Klein v. Armand (D. Utah 2021). “§ 25-6-304 ; Utah Code Ann. § 25-6-203 (1) (2017). 92 Receiver’s Motion for Summary Judgment at 19 n.”
AAAG California v. Kisana (D. Utah 2021). “Philpot and titled in her name should have raised eyebrows—after all, clients generally do not pay lawyers’ spouses for services provided by lawyers and, as explained, the structure of the transaction should have raised suspicions that it was intended to evade Section…”
Klein v. Justin D. Heideman LLC (D. Utah 2021). “§ 25-6-203 (1);45 (3) Defendant was acting in good faith and gave reasonably equivalent value for the attorney’s fees that were received from the debtor, per Utah Code Ann.”
Klein v. Justin D. Heideman LLC (D. Utah 2021). “§ 25-6-203(1), (3) (formerly numbered as Utah Code Ann.”
LuMee LLC v. Juan Fernandez (10th Cir. BAP 2024). “§ 25-6-202 (1)(b) because POT gave reasonably equivalent value in exchange for the money transferred; and (iii) the POT Transfers were not avoidable under Utah Code Ann. § 25-6-203 (2) because the transfers were made to an insider but not for an antecedent debt and Fernandez…”
Miller v. United States (10th Cir. 2025). “The “applicable law” on which the Trustee relied was now-former § 25-6-6(1) of Utah’s Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (amended 2017), presently codified at Utah Code Ann. § 25-6-203 (1) as part of Utah’s Uniform Voidable Transactions Act.”
— Utah Code § 25-6-203(1) — 4 cases
Chaturvedi v. Orbcomm Inc. (D. Utah 2023). “Follmer left inthinc insolvent amounts to a “formulaic recitation” of one of the two elements of a fraudulent transfer claim under Utah Code § 25-6-203(1). See id. § 25-6-203(1)(b).”
LuMee LLC v. Fernandez (Bankr. D. Utah 2025). “the POT Transfers were not avoidable under Utah Code Ann. § 25-6-203 (2) because the [T]ransfers were made to an insider but not for an antecedent debt .”
Klein v. Justin D. Heideman LLC (D. Utah 2021). “§ 25-6-203 (1);45 (3) Defendant was acting in good faith and gave reasonably equivalent value for the attorney’s fees that were received from the debtor, per Utah Code Ann.”
Klein v. Justin D. Heideman LLC (D. Utah 2021). “§ 25-6-203(1), (3) (formerly numbered as Utah Code Ann.”
— Utah Code § 25-6-203(1)(a) — 1 case
Chaturvedi v. Orbcomm Inc. (D. Utah 2023). “Follmer left inthinc insolvent amounts to a “formulaic recitation” of one of the two elements of a fraudulent transfer claim under Utah Code § 25-6-203(1). See id. § 25-6-203(1)(b).”
— Utah Code § 25-6-203(1)(b) — 2 cases
LuMee LLC v. Fernandez (Bankr. D. Utah 2023). “§ 25:2-27 (2) and Utah Code Ann. § 25-6-203 (2); (7) recovery remedies available to the Plaintiff under N.”
Chaturvedi v. Orbcomm Inc. (D. Utah 2023). “Follmer left inthinc insolvent amounts to a “formulaic recitation” of one of the two elements of a fraudulent transfer claim under Utah Code § 25-6-203(1). See id. § 25-6-203(1)(b).”
— Utah Code § 25-6-203(2) — 3 cases
LuMee LLC v. Fernandez (Bankr. D. Utah 2025). “the POT Transfers were not avoidable under Utah Code Ann. § 25-6-203 (2) because the [T]ransfers were made to an insider but not for an antecedent debt .”
AAAG California v. Kisana (D. Utah 2021). “Philpot and titled in her name should have raised eyebrows—after all, clients generally do not pay lawyers’ spouses for services provided by lawyers and, as explained, the structure of the transaction should have raised suspicions that it was intended to evade Section…”
LuMee LLC v. Fernandez (Bankr. D. Utah 2023). “§ 25:2-27 (2) and Utah Code Ann. § 25-6-203 (2); (7) recovery remedies available to the Plaintiff under N.”
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.