- 18 -
B. Transfers of Cash
In addition to the fraudulent transfer of real property and
the payments Mr. Fisher made on the loan, respondent contends
that the $14,457.97 retained by petitioners in the circular
movement of money for Mr. Fisher also was a fraudulent transfer.
Petitioners failed to provide any substantive argument as to why
this transfer was not fraudulent. However, in their answering
brief, petitioners, for the first time, contend that respondent's
focus on Florida law regarding their liability for these
transfers may be misplaced.
Petitioners suggest that Arizona law might apply because
they resided in the State of Arizona when the transfers of cash
took place. Arizona, like Florida, adopted the Uniform
Fraudulent Transfer Act, which was effective during the years in
issue. See Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. secs. 44-1001 to 44-1010 (West
1994). Petitioners have not demonstrated any difference between
Arizona's version of the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act and
Florida's version of the same act. Further, our review of these
two statutes reveals no significant differences in their language
as applicable to the facts of this case. Therefore, our
determination of petitioners' transferee liability regarding the
receipt of cash would be the same under either State's law.
As with the transfers of the real property and the payment
of the loan, there are several factors present in the transfer of
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011