![]() In 2013 the debtor and his wife executed a quitclaim deed conveying their title to the debtor’s mother-in-law in consideration for $10. The basic facts were: Title to a house acquired in 2012 was held in the name of the debtor, his wife and his mother-in-law as joint tenants. The subjective standard is whether there was actual intent to hinder, delay or defraud a creditor and the objective standard is whether the debtor-transferor received a reasonably equivalent value in exchange for such transfer and whether the debtor-transferor was insolvent or rendered insolvent by the transfer. The Bankruptcy Code codifies the law of subjective and objective fraudulent transfers in 11 U.S.C. The courts began using badges of fraud beginning with Twyne’s case in order to determine subjective fraudulent intent by reference to objective facts, and the law of fraudulent disposition was extended to constructively fraudulent transfers. However, since courts struggled reaching conclusions of the subjective intent of the transferor, the fraudulent transfer law was objectified. ![]() The bankruptcy court described the evolution of fraudulent transfer law as follows (footnotes omitted):įraudulent transfer law began as criminal and therefore intentional fraud law. The chapter 7 trustee sought to avoid the conveyance as a fraudulent transfer. 2016) –Ībout a year before filing bankruptcy, a debtor conveyed his interest as a joint tenant in a residential property to his mother-in-law in consideration for $10. (g) Each violation of any order set forth in subsection (e) may be considered contempt of court, punishable by a fine not to exceed $1,000, imprisonment in the county jail for not more than 120 days, or both such fine and imprisonment.Rodriguez v. (f) Any order set forth in subsection (e) shall be subject to modification and termination by the court that enters the order. (3) enjoin the defendant from filing any future liens or claims that would violate K.S.A. (2) enjoin the defendant from filing any future liens or claims, or future liens or claims against persons specified by the court, with any filing officer without approval of the court that enters the order and (1) Order the defendant to pay actual and liquidated damages up to $10,000 or, if actual damages exceed $10,000, all actual damages, to the plaintiff for each violation of K.S.A. 58-4301, and amendments thereto, the court may: (e) After trial, and if the court makes a finding that a lien or claim is fraudulent pursuant to K.S.A. (d) The court shall award the prevailing party the costs of the proceeding arising under this section and may award the prevailing party reasonable attorney's fees. 58-4301, and amendments thereto, and service shall be made in accordance with article 3 of chapter 60 of the Kansas Statutes Annotated, and amendments thereto. (c) Such an action shall be bifurcated from an action under K.S.A. ![]() ![]() ![]() (b) In such an action, the burden shall be on the plaintiff to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant knew or should have known that the documents filed or recorded were in violation of K.S.A. No action may be brought under this section against the filing office or filing officer as those terms are described in subsection (f) of K.S.A. 58-4301, and amendments thereto, the aggrieved person may bring a civil action for damages and injunctive relief against the person who filed or recorded the fraudulent documents. (a) After the court has made a finding that a lien or claim is fraudulent pursuant to K.S.A. Civil action against person filing fraudulent lien or claim procedure orders. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |