Notice:
DUE TO COVID-19, PHONE CONSULTATIONS ARE AVAILABLE TO ALL POTENTIAL CLIENTS AND CURRENT CLIENTS THAT PREFER NOT TO MEET ONSITE. PLEASE DON’T HESITATE TO CALL US IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS!

When can the Court set aside a fraudulent transfer in a California Family law case?

In Nautalis vs. Yang, the Fourth District discusses the good faith defense to set aside of a fraudulent transfer. It said that

(w)e publish our opinion because of our analysis of the requirements of the good faith defense. Some cases have held that a transferee cannot avail itself of the good faith defense if the transferee had fraudulent intent, colluded with a person who was engaged in a fraudulent conveyance, or actively participated in a fraudulent conveyance. A line of federal cases interpreting California law concludes the good faith defense may also fail if the transferee had actual knowledge of facts suggesting to a reasonable person that the transfer was fraudulent. Some of those cases may be read to improperly establish an inquiry notice standard, and others frame the test in a way that is inconsistent with the legislative comment to section 3439.08. After analyzing those state and federal cases, we hold a transferee cannot benefit from the good faith defense if that transferee had fraudulent intent, colluded with a person who was engaged in the fraudulent conveyance, actively participated in the fraudulent conveyance, or had actual knowledge of facts showing knowledge of the transferor’s fraudulent intent.

This case is a good reminder that Family court is a court of equity and a party who was part of a fraudulent transfer cannot raise a good faith defense (I completed the transfer in good faith) if the transferee is operating with fraudulent intent as establish by the facts.

Categories: