7 The Official Comments to the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act state: " 'Value' is to be determined in light of the purpose of the Act to protect a debtor's estate from being depleted to the prejudice of the debtor's unsecured creditors. Numerous courts that have interpreted fraudulent transfer statutes, including the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act, have recognized whether reasonably equivalent value was received must be determined from the perspective of the creditor.
To the extent Judkins can be considered to have received any consideration for the transfer, it is not valuable consideration from the perspective of SEPH.
Among the nuggets of wisdom found in the Court's opinion is in its rejection that Russell received "value" by transferring his property to Hwy 59 in exchange for a membership interest held in tenancy by the entireties: Suffice it to say that on these facts the Court had little problem finding that Russell had engaged in a fraudulent transfer to Highway 59, LLC, and that the latter was an "insider" as defined under the AUFTA. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama asserting a claim under the Alabama Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (AUFTA), and that Court held a bench trial, i.e., a non-jury trial. SEPH, which again was Vision Bank's successor, sued Russell and Highway 59, LLC, in the U.S. Further, in effecting the subject transfer, Defendants consciously or deliberately engaged in fraud, wantonness, and malice with regard to SEPH." Hwy 59 was controlled by Judkins with respect to this transfer and shared Judkins' intent that this transfer hinder, delay, or defraud Judkins' creditor, SEPH. Hwy 59 was created at the direction of Judkins for the purpose of fraudulently transferring assets, and Hwy 59 was an instrument of, and participant in, fraud since its inception. "Judkins transferred his interest in the subject real property with the actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud his creditor, SEPH. But the Court also noted that Russell's intent to cheat his creditors was clear: Suffice it to say that the transfers rendered Russell insolvent, and apparently he did not even attempt to contest that fact. Hightower had little to no independent recollection of the representation, but his notes reflected Judkins' joint and several guarantor liability of $15 million to $18 million of Coastal's debt was one of the topics discussed by Judkins with Hightower." And what was the purported excuse for these transfers if not to cheat the banks? The Judkins claimed that they were only engaged in these shenanigans only for "estate planning" purposes, or because Russell was concerned about a premises liability lawsuit. The net effect of all these transactions was to take the Judkins' property that would otherwise have been available to Russell's creditors and convert them into exempt TBE property that Vision Bank's successor, SE Property Holdings, LLC (SEPH), could not execute upon. But transferring property into TBE property wasn't attorney Hightower's only trick, as he also " drafted a mortgage agreement pursuant to which Judkins and his wife as tenants by the entirety secured a purported loan to Judkins and Van Aller," as the Court hearing the later fraudulent transfer lawsuit against the Judkins would later find.
0 kommentar(er)
