Utah Code
Utah Code § 25-6-304 (2026)
Good faith transfer
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
UT-LEGle.utah.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Except as otherwise provided in this section, a transfer or obligation is not voidable under Subsection 25-6-202(1)(a) against a person that took in good faith and for a reasonably equivalent value given the debtor or against any subsequent transferee or obligee.
Except as otherwise provided in this section, to the extent a transfer is avoidable in an action by a creditor under Subsection 25-6-303(1)(a), the following rules apply:
the creditor may recover judgment for the value of the asset transferred, as adjusted under Subsection (3), or the amount necessary to satisfy the creditor's claim, whichever is less; and
the judgment may be entered against:
the first transferee of the asset or the person for whose benefit the transfer was made; or
an immediate or mediate transferee of the first transferee, other than:
a good faith transferee that took for value; or
an immediate or mediate good faith transferee of a person described in Subsection (2)(b)(ii)(A); and
recovery under Subsection 25-6-303(1)(a) or (2) of or from the asset transferred or its proceeds, by levy or otherwise, is available only against a person described in Subsection (2)(b)(i) or (ii).
If the judgment under Subsection (2) is based upon the value of the asset transferred, the judgment shall be for an amount equal to the value of the asset at the time of the transfer, subject to an adjustment as equities may require.
Except as otherwise provided in this section, notwithstanding the voidability of a transfer or an obligation under this chapter, a good faith transferee or obligee is entitled, to the extent of the value given the debtor for the transfer or obligation, to:
a lien on or a right to retain an interest in the asset transferred;
enforcement of an obligation incurred; or
a reduction in the amount of the liability on the judgment.
A transfer is not voidable under Subsection 25-6-202(1)(b) or Section 25-6-203 if the transfer results from:
termination of a lease upon default by the debtor when the termination is pursuant to the lease and applicable law; or
enforcement of a security interest in compliance with Title 70A, Chapter 9a, Uniform Commercial Code - Secured Transactions, other than acceptance of collateral in full or partial satisfaction of the obligation it secures.
Except as otherwise provided in this section, a transfer is not voidable under Subsection 25-6-203(2):
to the extent the insider gave new value to or for the benefit of the debtor after the transfer was made, except to the extent the new value was secured by a valid lien;
if made in the ordinary course of business or financial affairs of the debtor and the insider; or
if made pursuant to a good-faith effort to rehabilitate the debtor and the transfer secured present value given for that purpose as well as an antecedent debt of the debtor.
A transfer is not voidable under Section 25-6-202 or Subsection 25-6-203(1) if:
the transfer was made by the debtor:
in payment of or in exchange for goods, services, or other consideration obtained by the debtor or a third party from a merchant in the ordinary course of the merchant's business; or
in payment of amounts loaned or advanced by a merchant or a credit or financing company to pay for the goods, services, or other consideration obtained by the debtor or a third party from a merchant in the ordinary course of the merchant's business;
the goods, services, or other consideration obtained from the merchant or the amounts loaned or advanced by the merchant or the credit or financing company in payment of the goods, services, or other consideration obtained from the merchant in the ordinary course of the merchant's business was of a reasonably equivalent value to the transfer, as provided in Subsection (8); and
the transferee received the transfer in good faith, in the ordinary course of the transferee's business, and without actual knowledge that:
the transfer was made by the debtor with actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud any creditor of the debtor; or
that the debtor was insolvent at the time the transfer was made.
For purposes of Subsection (7):
the term "merchant" means the same as that term is defined in Section 70A-2-104;
where the value of the goods, services, or other consideration obtained from the merchant, or where the value of the amounts loaned or advanced by a merchant or a credit or financing company in payment of the goods, services, or other consideration obtained from the merchant, was reasonably equivalent to the value of the transfer, the "reasonably equivalent value" requirement in Subsection (7)(b) will be satisfied regardless of whether the debtor or a third party received the reasonably equivalent value for the transfer; and
a transferee's receipt of payment from a debtor is not, and may not be used as, evidence that:
the transferee did not act in good faith;
the goods, services, or other consideration were not provided by the merchant in the ordinary course of the merchant's business;
the transferee had actual knowledge that the transfer was made by the debtor with actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud any creditor of the debtor; or
the debtor was insolvent at the time the transfer was made.
The following rules determine the burden of proving matters referred to in this section:
a party that seeks to invoke Subsection (1), (4), (5), or (6) has the burden of proving the applicability of that subsection;
except as otherwise provided in Subsections (9)(c) and (d), the creditor has the burden of proving each applicable element of Subsection (2) or (3);
the transferee has the burden of proving the applicability to the transferee of Subsection (2)(b)(ii)(A) or (B); and
a party that seeks adjustment under Subsection (3) has the burden of proving the adjustment.
The standard of proof required to establish matters referred to in this section is a preponderance of the evidence.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 45
cases (45 in the last 5 years), 2021–2026 · leading case: Com. Club v. Global Rescue, 2023 UT App 37 (Utah Ct. App. 2023).
Com. Club v. Global Rescue, 2023 UT App 37 (Utah Ct. App. 2023). “See Utah Code § 25-6-304 (providing that “a transfer or obligation is not voidable under Subsection 25-6-202(1)(a) against a person that took in good faith and for a reasonably equivalent value given the debtor”).”
AAAG California v. Kisana (D. Utah 2021). “” Utah Code § 25-6-304(1). Mr. Philpot “has the burden of proving” this defense by the “preponderance of the evidence.”
United States v. Peck, 139 F.4th 1158 (10th Cir. 2025). “” Utah Code Ann. § 25-6-304 (2)(b) (West 2025).”
Klein v. Justin D. Heideman LLC (D. Utah 2021). “He opines: (1) the attorney’s fees that Defendant received from the debtor are not voidable, per Utah Code Ann. § 25-6-304 (7);44 (2) the debtor received a reasonably equivalent value from Defendant in exchange for the payment of attorney’s fees, per Utah Code Ann.”
Hafen v. Taylor (D. Utah 2022). “Under Utah Code Ann. § 25-6-304 , is “reasonably equivalent value” limited to the amount of the principal or original investment? 5.”
Duffin v. Duffin, 2024 UT App 154 (Utah Ct. App. 2024). “” Utah Code § 25-6-304(2). In other words, the remedy available for a violation of the UVTA in this case is recovery of the amount of the creditor’s (namely, Brandy’s) underlying equitable claim in the divorce action, not some independent amount.”
Klein v. Shepard (D. Utah 2022). “173 Utah Code Ann. § 25-6-304 (1) (formerly Utah Code Ann.”
Hafen v. Howell (D. Utah 2023). “See Utah Code Ann. § 25-6-304 (2)(b) (“Except as otherwise provided in this section, to the extent a transfer is avoidable in an action by a creditor under Subsection 25-6- 303(1)(a), the following rules apply .”
AAAG California v. Kisana (D. Utah 2021). “Utah Code Ann. § 25-6-304 . Thus, the only person with the requisite standing to contest the Motion fails to successfully resist it.”
Klein v. Shepard (D. Utah 2021). “All of the transfers to Trudy Shepherd were payments of commissions for selling solar lenses to other investors.”
Klein v. Turner (D. Utah 2021). “92 Utah Code Ann. § 25-6-304 ; Utah Code Ann.”
Klein v. Kerr (D. Utah 2021). “93 Utah Code Ann. § 25-6-304 ; Utah Code Ann.”
— Utah Code § 25-6-304(1) — 4 cases
AAAG California v. Kisana (D. Utah 2021). “” Utah Code § 25-6-304(1). Mr. Philpot “has the burden of proving” this defense by the “preponderance of the evidence.”
Klein v. Justin D. Heideman LLC (D. Utah 2021). “He opines: (1) the attorney’s fees that Defendant received from the debtor are not voidable, per Utah Code Ann. § 25-6-304 (7);44 (2) the debtor received a reasonably equivalent value from Defendant in exchange for the payment of attorney’s fees, per Utah Code Ann.”
Klein v. Justin D. Heideman LLC (D. Utah 2021).
Klein v. Shepard (D. Utah 2022). “173 Utah Code Ann. § 25-6-304 (1) (formerly Utah Code Ann.”
— Utah Code § 25-6-304(2) — 3 cases
Duffin v. Duffin, 2024 UT App 154 (Utah Ct. App. 2024). “” Utah Code § 25-6-304(2). In other words, the remedy available for a violation of the UVTA in this case is recovery of the amount of the creditor’s (namely, Brandy’s) underlying equitable claim in the divorce action, not some independent amount.”
Duffin v. Duffin, 2024 UT App 154 (Utah Ct. App. 2024).
Duffin v. Duffin, 2024 UT App 154 (Utah Ct. App. 2024).
— Utah Code § 25-6-304(2)(a) — 5 cases
Hafen v. Howell (D. Utah 2023). “See Utah Code Ann. § 25-6-304 (2)(b) (“Except as otherwise provided in this section, to the extent a transfer is avoidable in an action by a creditor under Subsection 25-6- 303(1)(a), the following rules apply .”
Hafen v. Haddock (D. Utah 2025).
Hafen v. Nichols (D. Utah 2025).
Hafen (D. Utah 2026).
— Utah Code § 25-6-304(2)(ii) — 1 case
AAAG California v. Kisana (D. Utah 2021). “” Utah Code § 25-6-304(1). Mr. Philpot “has the burden of proving” this defense by the “preponderance of the evidence.”
— Utah Code § 25-6-304(7)(c) — 1 case
AAAG California v. Kisana (D. Utah 2021). “” Utah Code § 25-6-304(1). Mr. Philpot “has the burden of proving” this defense by the “preponderance of the evidence.”
— Utah Code § 25-6-304(9) — 1 case
AAAG California v. Kisana (D. Utah 2021). “” Utah Code § 25-6-304(1). Mr. Philpot “has the burden of proving” this defense by the “preponderance of the evidence.”
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.