§ 2289. Transfer or obligation voidable as to present creditor
(a) 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 that
time or the debtor became insolvent as a result of the transfer or obligation.
(b) 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 that time, and the insider had reasonable cause to believe
that the debtor was insolvent.
(c) Subject to subsection 2286(b) of this title, a creditor making a claim for relief under subsection (a) or (b) of this section
has the burden of proving the elements of the claim for relief by a preponderance
of the evidence. (Added 1995, No. 179 (Adj. Sess.), § 14; amended 2017, No. 20, § 1.)
Canney v. Fisher & Strattner, LLC (In re Turner & Cook, Inc.), 507 B.R. 101 (Bankr. D. Vt. 2014). · cites it 5דAMEX charges paid by T & C for the Defendant’s sole benefit Count Twenty-One alleges that certain AMEX charges paid by T & C on behalf of the Defendant were constructively fraudulent under 9 V.S.A. § 2289. Count Twenty-Three alleges they were constructively fraudulent under 11 U.”
Sensenich v. Molleur (In Re Chase), 328 B.R. 675 (Bankr. D. Vt. 2005). “The Plaintiffs seek to avoid the transfer of a dwelling located in West Danville, Vermont (the “Subject Property”), effected pursuant to the Vermont strict foreclosure process, as a fraudulent conveyance under § 548 1 and 9 V.S.A. § 2289(a). This Court has determined as a matter…”
Ag Venture Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Montagne (Montagne), 417 B.R. 232 (Bankr. D. Vt. 2009). “9 V.S.A. § 2289 (emphasis added). The rule is that “[e]very conveyance made with the actual intent to defraud creditors is fraudulent as to creditors and will be set aside.”
In Re Ahokas, 361 B.R. 54 (Bankr. D. Vt. 2007). “Fraudulent Conveyance Arguments Are Misplaced Although the parties debate in their cross-motions for summary judgment *67 whether Ahokas’ quit claim deed to herself and her parents constituted a fraudulent conveyance under Vermont law, 9 V.S.A. § 2289, the Creditor never raised…”
Huber v. Currie (Vt. Super. Ct. 2025). “9 V.S.A. § 2289(a). Order Page 5 of 11 21-CV-01732 Christopher Huber v.”
Munson Earth Moving v. Holmberg (Vt. Super. Ct. 2005). “9 V.S.A. § 2289(b) (allowing creditors to reach-out to transfers made to insiders); 9 V.”
Munson Earth Moving v. Holmberg (Vt. Super. Ct. 2004). “Plaintiff argues that it is entitled to reach out to Peter and his wife Marilyn and avoid the November transfers because § 5 (b) of the Uniform Fraudulent Transfers Act (as adopted by the Vermont legislature at 9 V.S.A. § 2289 (b)) allows a creditor whose claim pre-dates the…”
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 09, § 2289(a) — 3 cases
Canney v. Fisher & Strattner, LLC (In re Turner & Cook, Inc.), 507 B.R. 101 (Bankr. D. Vt. 2014). “AMEX charges paid by T & C for the Defendant’s sole benefit Count Twenty-One alleges that certain AMEX charges paid by T & C on behalf of the Defendant were constructively fraudulent under 9 V.S.A. § 2289. Count Twenty-Three alleges they were constructively fraudulent under 11 U.”
Sensenich v. Molleur (In Re Chase), 328 B.R. 675 (Bankr. D. Vt. 2005). “The Plaintiffs seek to avoid the transfer of a dwelling located in West Danville, Vermont (the “Subject Property”), effected pursuant to the Vermont strict foreclosure process, as a fraudulent conveyance under § 548 1 and 9 V.S.A. § 2289(a). This Court has determined as a matter…”
Huber v. Currie (Vt. Super. Ct. 2025). “9 V.S.A. § 2289(a). Order Page 5 of 11 21-CV-01732 Christopher Huber v.”
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 09, § 2289(b) — 1 case
Munson Earth Moving v. Holmberg (Vt. Super. Ct. 2005). “9 V.S.A. § 2289(b) (allowing creditors to reach-out to transfers made to insiders); 9 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.